Supreme Court grants interim protection to accused who claimed he is not the person named in FIR, invoked right of progeny

The Supreme Court Thursday ordered that no coercive action be taken against an accused in a cheating case who moved the Supreme Court for bail, claiming he is not the person named in the first information report (FIR). [Shivakumar @ Senthilkumar P vs State of Gujarat].The order was passed by a bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah on a plea by one Senthilkumar P, a business process outsourcing (BPO) professional based in Tamil Nadu.He moved the Court claiming that he is not Shivakumar, who is named in the FIR lodged in connection with a case of facilitating conversion of international voice over internet protocol (VOIP) calls to local ones.The same caused a loss of revenue of ₹2.5 crore for the Union government, the complaint alleged.Pertinently, the petitioner invoked the 'right of progeny' stating that his wife and he are undergoing fertility treatment and, therefore, they need to be in each other's company for 4-6 months to ensure pregnancy."The Court recognised the four Purusharthas as mentioned in the Upanishads as fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the petitioner is not to be denied the relief of Anticipatory Bail for this reason among other strong reasons. There is no clarity in the prosecution case even as regards the name of the petitioner. The petitioner is not ShivaKumar and has never been known as Shivakumar and he has been added as Shivakumar in the present FIR."The petitioner relied on an April 2022 decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Nand Lal, in which it was held that the right or wish to have progeny is available to a prisoner. The same was upheld by the top court..The top court in its order also sought the response of the Gujarat government, within four weeks..In February, the Gujarat High Court had upheld a Sessions Court order denying anticipatory bail to Senthilkumar. He pointed out that he is based in Tamil Nadu and has never even visited Ahmedabad."The petitioner has never visited the city of Ahmedabad. The petitioner cannot be charged for conspiracy under 120B of the IPC either because even accepting the prosecution story, not even an iota of allegations are present in terms of the ingredients apart from a mere speculative vague story that the petitioner is the kingpin/mastermind etc.".On the allegations of revenue loss and commission of offences under the Indian Wireless Telegraph Act and the Indian Telegraph Act, the plea stressed that the actions alleged were committed by others."...as per the affidavit of IO it is revealed that Government of India has suffered the loss of Rs. 2,50,65,902/-, but nothing from the record shows that a single penny is earned by present petitioner out of such offence which even otherwise is not committed by present petitioner, neither there is anything to show as to how the Government of India had incurred loss and how the amount or figure of Rs. 2,50,65,902/- is calculated.".The plea, filed through advocate Sriram Parakkat, therefore, sought an interim stay of the High Court order.Apart from Parakkat, advocates MS Vishnu Shankar, Omar Salim, Koshy John, Athira G Nair, Sreenath S and Adithya Santosh represented the petitioner before the top court.[Read Order]