Govt Money At Stake: Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Two Accused Of Cheating In Safari Bookings At Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve

The Bombay High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to two individuals accused of cheating the Forest Department out of booking amount received from tourists for online booking of jungle safari in Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve.

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of the Nagpur bench, while rejecting anticipatory bail application of Abhishek and Rohitkumar Thakur, partners of the firm Wild Connectivity Solutions (WCS), observed –

“Considering the role of applicants in the crime having involved enormous and huge amount, siphoning of the amount and fabrication of digital data, and the investigation revealing the manner in which the forest department is duped and the government money is at stake, the role of the applicants is clearly exposed. In the background of accusations and its gravity, applicants are not entitled for being released on bail in the event of their arrest.”

The applicants are accused under Sections 420, 406, and 409 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The case stems from an agreement entered into between WCS and the Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserve Conservation Foundation (TATR) for online bookings of Jungle Safari on December 10, 2021. The bookings amounts were accepted by the firms but allegedly not deposited with the TATR.

According to the Divisional Forest Officer of TATR, the applicants, as partners of WCS, breached the terms and conditions of the agreement, failing to pay an amount totalling Rs. 12,15,50,831 with the Forest Department. The complaint further alleges that the applicants used the name of TATR for personal business, siphoning public funds and ultimately leading to the cancellation of the agreement.

Advocate RL Khapre for the accused contended that the dispute is of a civil nature and should be subject to arbitration. He asserted that the Forest Department's allegations are based on false claims and that the applicants never contravened the terms of the agreement. He highlighted that the applicants approached the District Court for arbitration, which partially allowed their application, restraining TATR from cancelling the agreement until arbitration proceedings commenced.

Additional Public Prosecutor VA Thakare argued that the investigation revealed non-deposit of amounts received for online safari bookings, with allegations of fraudulent activities and creation of an illegal account named "Madhya Pradesh Safari." The prosecution emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to recover deleted data, ascertain transaction details, and seize electronic devices for digital forensic audit. Thakare pointed out allegations of non-payment of GST, cancellation of GST registrations without notification, and unpaid fees to gypsy owners and guides.

The court examined the Service Level Agreement between WCS and TATR, outlining the obligations of WCS, including depositing entry fees, gypsy charges, and guide charges in specified accounts.

The court took note of the preliminary audit findings revealing a significant number of deleted transactions and potential misappropriation. Numerous communications were sent to the applicants to comply with their obligations, but they did not respond adequately, the court noted. The entire data is lying with applicants and unless it is collected by the investigating officer, the exact amounts of transactions cannot be ascertained, the court highlighted.

the intention of applicants can be gathered from circumstances and manner in which transactions were entered into by applicants and large money of government is siphoned.

In light of the alleged siphoning of public funds, fabrication of digital records, and the substantial amount involved, the court held that the case falls within the category of economic offenses with grave consequences.

Considering the gravity of the accusations, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application, emphasizing that the observations made were prima facie and not final findings.

Case no. – Criminal Application (ABA) No. 620/2023

Case Title – Abhishek s/o Vinodsingh Thakur and Anr v. State of Maharashtra