Bombay High Court Denies Successive Anticipatory Bail in ₹92.88 Lakh Fraud Case, Notes Applicant Absconded to Dubai in 2018 and Failed to Cooperate with Investigation

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of the accused, Anwar Hussain Ansari, in connection with a ₹92.88 lakh fraud case. The Court found that the applicant played a significant role in the alleged scheme by inducing the informant and accepting substantial funds. The Court emphasized the necessity for custodial interrogation and observed that the applicant’s abscondence from India since 2018 further hindered the investigation.

---

Facts:

1. Nature of the Case:
   • The FIR was lodged in January 2022 under various sections of the IPC, including Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), 467, and 468 (forgery).
2. Allegations:
   • The applicant allegedly introduced the informant to a fraudulent investment scheme promising returns of ₹15,000 per month on an investment of ₹1 lakh.
   • The informant and others invested ₹92.88 lakh, of which only ₹9 lakh was returned.
3. Applicant’s Role:
   • The applicant personally received ₹3.8 lakh through his bank account and played a pivotal role in inducing the informant and others to invest further sums.
4. Delay in Lodging FIR:
   • The alleged fraud occurred in 2016, but the FIR was filed only in 2022, which the applicant argued was a deliberate act to pressurize him.

---

Issues:

1. Whether the delay in filing the FIR invalidated the allegations.
2. Whether the applicant’s custodial interrogation was necessary.
3. Whether the applicant could be granted anticipatory bail in light of his alleged involvement and abscondence.

---

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Limited Role:
   • Claimed to have only introduced the informant to other accused and denied involvement in the misappropriation.
2. Delay in FIR:
   • Highlighted the 6-year delay between the alleged incident and the filing of the FIR as evidence of its malafide nature.
3. Partial Settlement:
   • Stated that one co-accused had already returned ₹50 lakh to the informant, demonstrating efforts to resolve the matter.
4. Comparative Treatment:
   • Argued that another co-accused, Kisan Khatnahar, was granted regular bail, implying the applicant’s lesser involvement.

---

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Substantial Role:
   • Emphasized that the applicant was instrumental in initiating the fraudulent scheme and received over ₹30 lakh from the informant.
2. Ongoing Investigation:
   • Highlighted the need for custodial interrogation to trace funds and uncover the full scope of the conspiracy.
3. Abscondence:
   • Asserted that the applicant had absconded to Dubai in 2018 and failed to cooperate with the investigation.
4. Public Interest:
   • Maintained that granting anticipatory bail would compromise the integrity of the investigation and deter future accountability in financial crimes.

---

Analysis of the Law:

1. Anticipatory Bail Standards:
   • The Court reiterated that anticipatory bail cannot be granted when custodial interrogation is essential for effective investigation.
2. Role of the Applicant:
   • Found sufficient prima facie evidence of the applicant’s active involvement in inducing investments and misappropriating funds.
3. Abscondence as a Factor:
   • Stated that the applicant’s continued absence from India undermined his credibility and obstructed the investigative process.
4. Delay in FIR:
   • Observed that the delay, while significant, did not nullify the allegations, as the informant’s trust was initially built through partial returns on investment.

---

Precedent Analysis:

1. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab:
   • Highlighted that anticipatory bail is discretionary and should be denied when the applicant’s custodial interrogation is necessary.
2. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma:
   • Reaffirmed that abscondence is a critical factor against granting anticipatory bail.

---

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Prima Facie Case:
   • The Court noted evidence from bank statements showing deposits into the applicant’s account and statements from other investors corroborating the scheme.
2. Custodial Interrogation:
   • Emphasized that the applicant’s interrogation was crucial to recover funds and identify the broader conspiracy.
3. Seriousness of Allegations:
   • Observed that the alleged fraud of ₹92.88 lakh involved multiple victims, warranting stringent scrutiny.
4. Applicant’s Conduct:
   • Criticized the applicant for absconding and not cooperating with the investigation.

---

Conclusion:

The Bombay High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, citing the applicant’s active role in the fraud, abscondence, and the necessity of custodial interrogation. The Court highlighted the importance of deterring financial crimes and protecting public interest in such cases.

Also Read: Calcutta High Court: “Adverse Possession Claims Require Trial; Dismissal Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Limited to Clear Cases of Law Bar or Lack of Cause of Action”