Anticipatory bail denied where financial transactions indicate potential misappropriation despite claims of civil dispute.

The complainant, a single parent, alleged that accused Parth Gulhati contacted her after meeting her son in a rehabilitation center and assured her he could send both her sons to Canada to open a resort.

Subsequently, Parth Gulhati induced the complainant to transfer approximately ₹25,00,000/- into the bank accounts of all accused persons over several months, ostensibly as fees for sending her children abroad.

The complainant continued making payments due to threats that stopping payment would result in the loss of money already paid.

Parth Gulhati allegedly hacked her mobile phone and transferred funds to his account.

After an online complaint was lodged, the accused introduced her to an employee of "IRISH Expert," an agency for overseas placement, and made her pay an additional ₹11,500/- to them online.

When her sons were not sent abroad, the accused allegedly threatened the complainant to kill her and assassinate her character when she sought a refund.

The accused received interim protection from arrest on October 29, 2024, and February 10, 2025, subject to joining the investigation, which continued until the present hearing.

1. Whether the present case, primarily involving the complainant's demand for the return of money, constitutes a civil dispute masquerading as a criminal offense.

2. Whether the lack of explicit allegations of inducement or dishonest intention in the FIR precludes the existence of a criminal offense under Section 406/420/34 IPC.

3. Whether the custody of the accused is required for further investigation, specifically regarding the financial transactions and alleged misappropriation of funds.

The court considered the elements of Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) and Section 420 (cheating) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

It applied the principle that an offense is not solely determined by the literal wording of the FIR but by the overall content of the complaint to infer inducement, dishonest intention, or other features of an alleged offense.

The court also examined the necessity of custodial interrogation in light of the accused's non-cooperation during investigation regarding the receipt of payments.

The court dismissed the argument that the case was purely a civil dispute, noting that the accused, despite not being in the business of sending people abroad, took approximately ₹25,00,000/- from the complainant under such a pretext.

The court found that the overall content of the FIR prima facie suggested an offense, rather than just a civil dispute.

While the accused claimed the payments were for "different other transactions" and "friendly transactions" between the complainant and Mitali Gulhati, they failed to disclose the pretext for receiving such a large sum during both interrogation and court arguments.

Investigations revealed that only ₹11,500/- was paid to "IRISH Expert" for study purposes, not business, indicating misappropriation of the remaining funds intended for sending the sons abroad.

The court also found the IO's request for custodial interrogation justified, as the accused did not truthfully disclose the receipt of payments, despite the transactions being made through banking channels, which implied a need for further investigation to uncover the truth.

The court rejected the argument that not reflecting the disputed payments in Income Tax Returns could absolve the accused of the alleged offenses, especially given the documentary evidence and WhatsApp chats supporting the money transfers.

All applications for anticipatory bail (BAIL APPLN. 3923/2024, BAIL APPLN. 3970/2024, and BAIL APPLN. 3990/2024) were dismissed.