POOJA MANU PRASHANT WIG v. STATE OF GUJARAT

Factual and Procedural Background

The matter arises from an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the applicant Pooja Manu Prashant Wig seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR C.R.No.I-3 of 2020 registered with C.I.D. Crime Branch Police Station, Ahmedabad Zone. The FIR alleges offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 of the Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2003, and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act.

On 04/07/2023 the matter was taken up for hearing because the Investigating Officer (I.O.) was present and had submitted a report dated 03.07.2023 addressed to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP). The Court issued rule, with the APP waiving service of rule for the State, and parties consented to proceed with hearing on the same day.

Relevant factual points placed on record and considered by the Court include: the applicant is a female aged about 44 years and is the wife of one of the accused who is a director of two companies (Blue Fox Motion Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and BFX Pictures LLP Pvt. Ltd.); the applicant was not named in the FIR; she was summoned after around three years by a summons dated 17.06.2023 under Section 160 Cr.P.C.; records indicate she was neither a director nor present at company business meetings and the summons arose because certain amounts were found deposited in her account from accounts of companies in which her husband was a director; and the applicant stated she would cooperate with investigation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in relation to FIR C.R.No.I-3 of 2020.
2. Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary at the present stage.
3. If anticipatory bail is granted, what conditions should be imposed and whether the Investigating Agency may still seek police remand.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• Custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary.
• The applicant will keep herself available during investigation and trial and will not flee from justice.
• The applicant is willing to abide by all reasonable conditions, including those relating to the Investigating Agency's power to file an application for remand; the applicant reserves the right to oppose any such remand application on merits.
• On instructions, counsel noted that the applicant was not named in the FIR, was not a director nor present at the company's business meetings, and was summoned three years after registration of the FIR; counsel also submitted that the applicant has no antecedents.

Respondent (State)'s Arguments

• The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed anticipatory bail, relying on the nature and gravity of the alleged offences.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court explained its approach as follows:

• The Court proceeded to hear the matter on the day because the Investigating Officer was present and had filed a report, enabling the Court to consider material from the investigation up to that date.
• On perusal of the record and material placed before it, the Court weighed the facts of the case, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, and the role attributed to the accused, while expressly avoiding detailed discussion of evidence at this stage.
• The Court enumerated specific factual aspects that weighed in favour of the applicant: her age (about 44 years), her relationship as the wife of a named accused/director, the fact that she was not named in the FIR, the significant time gap (around three years) between registration of the complaint and issuance of summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C., and records suggesting she was neither a company director nor present at company business meetings; the summons related to amounts found deposited in her account originating from companies where her husband was director.
• The applicant's expressed willingness to cooperate with investigation and absence of antecedents (as submitted) were also considered.
• Given these circumstances, and in particular that custodial interrogation of the applicant was not considered necessary at that stage, the Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail.
• The Court also indicated that it has taken into consideration the law laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and the Constitution Bench decision in Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia, as reiterated in Siddharam, when reaching its decision (the opinion does not detail the specific legal tests from those cases).
• The Court imposed specific conditions on the grant of anticipatory bail and clarified procedural aspects relating to possible police remand: the Investigating Agency remains free to apply for police remand; the learned Magistrate shall decide such an application on merits; the applicant must attend the Magistrate and may oppose remand; if remanded, upon completion of the police remand period the applicant shall be set free immediately subject to the bail conditions.
• The Court further directed that the trial court should not be influenced by the prima facie observations made in this order.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and anticipatory bail is granted to the applicant in respect of FIR C.R.No.I-3 of 2020.

Consequences and conditions arising from the order (as stated in the opinion):

• The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest on executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with one surety of like amount.
• Conditions of bail imposed by the Court:
  • Cooperate with the investigation and make herself available for interrogation whenever required.
  • Remain present at the concerned Police Station on 11.07.2023 between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.
  • Not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure to the Court or police.
  • Not obstruct or hamper the police investigation or tamper with evidence.
  • Furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court at the time of execution of the bond and not change residence until final disposal of the case, unless otherwise ordered.
  • Not leave India without permission of the concerned trial court; if in possession of a passport, deposit it before the concerned trial court within one week.
  • It is open to the Investigating Officer to apply for remand if considered proper; the learned Magistrate will decide such application on merits, and the accused has the right to oppose such an application.
• Procedural clarifications and implications:
  • The Investigating Agency may apply to the competent Magistrate for police remand; the applicant must appear before the Magistrate on the first and subsequent dates as directed.
  • The applicant, if remanded to police custody for a period, shall be set free immediately upon completion of such police remand period subject to the other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.
  • The trial court is directed not to be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
• No broader precedent or novel legal principle is stated to have been created by this order; the Court expressly relied upon prior Supreme Court decisions (Siddharam and Sibbia) in its consideration.

This summary is strictly confined to the information and statements contained in the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond the opinion text.