In High Court's decision to dismiss an anticipatory bail application filed by a petitioner in connection with an FIR (No. 88/2022) registered under Sections 409, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pertaining to criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal conspiracy. The petitioner has also been charged under Section 174A IPC for evading arrest and was declared a proclaimed person by the trial court.

The core of the prosecution's case is that Taj Exports, the complainant, purchased 26 kg of gold from Yes Bank. This gold was delivered through hired logistics companies (M/s Brinks India Private Limited and M/s Securitrans India Private Limited) to employees of M/s Jewels Creation Private Limited, a company directed by the petitioner, Jagadish Das. The gold was intended for making jewelry. While 16.131 kg of gold jewelry was returned, the balance of 9.868 kg of gold was neither converted into jewelry nor returned to Taj Exports.

The petitioner, through his Senior Counsel, argued that the dispute is civil/commercial, stemming from a longstanding business relationship, and lacks criminal intent. He contended that the gold was never delivered to him personally but to individuals (Mr. Arup Bhuiya and Mr. Ranjan Mitra) who were agents of the complainant, not his employees. The petitioner also highlighted that he had lodged a complaint prior to the FIR regarding the complainant retaining his property documents, suggesting a monetary dispute. He further claimed that he was unaware of the criminal proceedings, as notices were served at an address that had been locked for 1.5 years, despite other addresses being available with the investigating officer. He asserted that the declaration as a proclaimed person was made in a "cavalier manner," without proper adherence to legal procedures.

Conversely, the State, supported by its status report, maintained that the petitioner is a Director of M/s JD Jewels Creation Pvt. Ltd., and Mr. Arup Bhuiya and Mr. Ranjan Mitra were his associates/employees authorized to collect bullion on his behalf. The State emphasized that the petitioner consistently failed to return the gold and deliberately evaded investigation and court appearances, displaying a "cavalier attitude."

The court noted that the investigation revealed the complainant-firm's purchase of gold from Yes Bank and its delivery to the petitioner's company through the logistics agencies. Confirmation of receipt was also sent by the petitioner's company. Crucially, Mr. Arup Bhuiya and Mr. Ranjan Mitra, in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., confirmed receiving the gold as employees of the petitioner's company and handing it over to the petitioner. The investigation concluded that the petitioner, as an active Director and beneficiary, dishonestly misappropriated the gold.

The High Court ultimately dismissed the anticipatory bail application. It emphasized the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, particularly in the context of economic offenses. The court noted the petitioner's consistent disobedience in failing to join the investigation despite being aware of it (evidenced by a notice sent to his son's WhatsApp).

Referring to a series of Supreme Court precedents, including State Vs. Anil Sharma, Srikant Upadhyay & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Another, Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, and the recent Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Aditya Sarda, the court reiterated that:

• Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and not as a matter of routine.
• Custodial interrogation is crucial for effective investigation.
• Being declared an absconder or proclaimed person significantly undermines a claim for pre-arrest bail, as the law aids those who abide by it, not those who resist.
• Courts should seriously consider the issuance of non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings when evaluating anticipatory bail applications, especially in cases of grave economic offenses that impact the nation's financial health.

The court concluded that the petitioner's conduct demonstrated "consistent disobedience" and that the present case did not constitute "exceptional or extraordinary circumstances" warranting the discretionary power of anticipatory bail.