InBail Appln. 2704/2023 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court grants anticipatory bail to man accused of cheating bakelite sheet supplier
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar [21-09-2023]

Read Order:Sanjeev Jain V. State & Anr

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, October 3, 2023: The Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of cheating a supplier of bakelite sheets and laminated boards. The Court's decision was based on the delay in filing the FIR and the accused's cooperation with the investigation.

The present bail application was filed by the petitioner, seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 420/468/471 Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In summary, the present case was registered, based on a complaint made by one Manish Jain, who, in his complaint, alleged that he had been running a business under the name of M/s Bahubali Industries and there had been business dealings between the complainant and the petitioner. The complainant had supplied goods on different occasions, supported by various invoices, and a total sum of Rs. 28,26,248 was owed by the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner had repeatedly provided false assurances of payment but had failed to fulfil the commitment. The complainant had attempted to contact the petitioner to settle the outstanding balance in exchange for the supplied goods, but the petitioner did not make the payment. It was also submitted that similar complaint had also been filed by the complainant's father, who claimed to be the owner of M/s Bahubali Traders. In that complaint, the petitioner was accused of buying goods worth Rs. 13,67,581 but failing to make the payment.

The counsel for the petitioner argued thatthe case had been given a criminal colour to what was essentially a civil dispute. Additionally, it was emphasized that the petitioner had cooperated fully during the investigation, and there were no outstanding amounts to be recovered from him. Furthermore, it was pointed out that there had been a significant delay of over three years in filing the current FIR. This delay was seen as an attempt to exert pressure on the petitioner, particularly because the statutory limitation period for filing a money suit is three years, which had already expired.

On the other hand, the Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the state and the counsel for the complainant argued that the allegations against the petitioner were of a grave nature. They further contended that the petitioner had sent a photograph of an e-way bill to the complainant's mobile phone, informing him about the return of the goods. However, the complainant asserted that he never received the goods, and it was discovered that the vehicle number mentioned in the e-way bill did not correspond to any existing vehicle.

The single-judge bench of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar noted that the prosecution did not dispute the fact that the petitioner had willingly cooperated with the investigating officer, whenever he was summoned for questioning. The underlying transaction in question dates back to 2019, whereas the present FIR was registered in 2022. Additionally, the APP had contended that the petitioner had not cooperated in the investigation. However, the bench considered this assertion to be unsubstantiated, as the status report did not provide any specific details regarding how the petitioner had failed to cooperate in the investigation. On the contrary, it was observed that the petitioner had consistently participated in the investigation during the period when he was granted protection by the Sessions Court.

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court determined that there was no need for the petitioner to undergo custodial interrogation. Consequently, the application was allowed, and it was ordered that in the event of the petitioner's arrest, he should be released on bail.