Archana Gautam v. State of Uttarakhand

Archana Gautam seeking her release on bail in connection with FIR No.0492 dated 16.06.2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Haridwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. As per the prosecution case, the informant, Mr. Vikash Kaushik, father of Dr. Aryan Kaushik, lodged the FIR alleging that in July 2023, he was exploring opportunities for his son's higher education abroad, subsequent to his M.B.B.S. degree from Perms University, Russia. He came into contact with a representative named Sagar from "The Internationally," a consultancy firm claiming to assist students in securing foreign admissions.

3. Acting upon the assurances extended by Sagar, the informant visited the office of the said consultancy firm at Angel Mall, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, where he met three individuals—Mr. Vivek Kumar, Mr. Rahul Gautam, and the present applicant, Ms. Archana 2 Gautam—who allegedly introduced themselves as directors. They assured the informant of their strong foreign networks and prior successful facilitation of student admissions.

4. To reinforce trust, a video call was arranged with one Ms. Susmita Nanda, based in Germany, who introduced herself as the director of "IBS International." On her representation, the informant agreed to pay ₹2,00,000 to the applicant’s account on 2nd and 3rd August 2023, and subsequently transferred €10,500 (approximately ₹9,70,000) to Ms. Nanda’s overseas account on 25.08.2023 for admission into Barcelona University, Spain.

5. Thereafter, the informant was provided with an offer letter purportedly from Barcelona University, and advised to apply for a student visa. However, the visa was rejected by the Spanish Embassy on the ground that the documents submitted were fake, which led to the filing of the present FIR.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Government Advocate for the State, who appeared on advance notice. I have also perused the record of the bail application along with the case diary and relevant documents annexed thereto.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and no specific act of forgery or deceit is attributable to her. It is contended that her role was restricted to India-based facilitation and consultancy, while the responsibility of generating admission documents securing university confirmation was solely that of Ms. Susmita Nanda, as per a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 20.09.2022. 3

8. The MoU clearly delineated the division of responsibilities between "The Internationally" and "IBS International," assigning 80% to Ms. Nanda’s entity and 20% to the applicant’s consultancy. It is further urged that out of the total ₹10,70,000 allegedly paid by the informant, only ₹2,00,000 was received by the applicant, of which ₹1,50,000 has already been refunded in good faith by way of three instalments on 11.05.2024, 15.05.2024, and 20.05.2024.

9. The applicant contends that the offer letter was forwarded by her after receiving it from the foreign partner and that she had no knowledge of its alleged falsity. She is herself a victim of deception by Ms. Nanda. The records also reflect that the complainant’s visa was rejected on the ground of “insufficient economic means,” and not explicitly due to forged documents.

10. It lastly argued that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, has cooperated in the investigation, and has remained in custody for over 105 days. The charge sheet has already been filed, and further incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment, infringing her liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate submits that the applicant was an active conspirator in a well-orchestrated fraud. It is contended that the accused induced the complainant to part with substantial sums of money under false pretences of securing a university admission abroad.

12. The State places reliance on bank records which reveal that ₹1,00,000 was directly deposited into the applicant’s SBI account. It is also pointed out that the cheque allegedly issued as refund has 4 bounced, and a reply from Barcelona University, procured by the complainant, confirms that the offer letter was fabricated. The university has, in fact, lodged its own complaint.

13. The State further argues that the matter concerns economic fraud of serious magnitude, affecting not just monetary interests but also a young student's academic future. The potential of the applicant to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, given her role in a consultancy setup with access to student clients, is emphasized.

14. It is submitted that although the charge sheet has been filed, the trial is at a preliminary stage, and key witnesses remain to be examined. The State prays for rejection of the bail plea.

15. Upon consideration of the facts and rival submissions, this Court finds that the case, as set out in the FIR and subsequent materials, raises allegations of involving educational consultancy services. However, the prima facie evidence on record suggests that the dominant role in the alleged deception was played by Ms. Susmita Nanda, based in Germany, who received the bulk of the funds and is alleged to have provided the forged documents.

16. The MoU dated 20.09.2022, checklist documents, and transactional data support the applicant’s claim that her involvement was limited to domestic facilitation. The State has not brought on record any conclusive material to demonstrate the applicant's prior knowledge of the forged documents or her active participation in their creation. 5

17. While the documents allegedly led to the rejection of the visa application, the records also suggest the alternate ground of insufficient financial means. This factual dispute is best determined during trial.

18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, held that “bail is not to be withheld as a punishment,” and that in economic offences, the gravity of the allegation alone does not justify prolonged pre-trial detention, absent credible proof of active complicity and wrongful gain.

19. In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, it was reiterated that once the investigation is complete and the accused has cooperated, bail ought to be the norm rather than exception. Further, in Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 3173 of 2024, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fundamental principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”

20. Having considered the totality of circumstances, the period of incarceration, the absence of direct evidence linking the applicant to the preparation of forged documents, the filing of the charge sheet, and the limited nature of her role as reflected in the record, this Court is of the opinion that there exist sufficient grounds for granting bail to the applicant. ORDER

21. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed. Let the applicant–Archana Gautam be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions: 6 (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness. (ii) The applicant shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and attend court as and when directed. (iii) Any infraction of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

16.04.2025 (Ashish Naithani, J.) NR NITESH RAWAT Digitally signed by NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d563d95c70eb77fa0ea4758e401cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897BCDC0B6567DCE4B7108B324FFED3C8A159F3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT