Nilesh Sharma vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Nilesh Sharma, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0090 dated 16.08.2024, registered at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana, under Sections 420, 406, and 120B of the IPC. The FIR was based on a complaint by Baljinder Singh, whose firm supplied iron pipes valued at Rs. 6,27,94,312.54/- to the petitioner between 01.08.2023 and 04.01.2024. The petitioner paid Rs. 3,31,11,721/-, leaving a balance of Rs. 2,96,82,592.54/-. The petitioner issued cheques for the balance amount, which were dishonored, allegedly due to a stop-payment instruction from the petitioner. The complainant also filed nine criminal complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioner declared no prior criminal antecedents and stated his wife had been granted bail by the Sessions Court.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner made a case for anticipatory bail. Regarding the first issue, while the allegations of cheating and dishonored cheques were noted, the Court considered the petitioner's compliance with court orders and declaration of assets as indicators of bonafide. The dispute was characterized as primarily a business transaction where the petitioner allegedly defaulted on payment. The Court emphasized that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing and that the evidence, while potentially sufficient for prosecution, did not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration at the anticipatory bail stage. The Court found no justifiability for custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration based on the penal provisions invoked and the prima facie analysis of the allegations and other peculiar factors. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail subject to furnishing bonds and complying with specific conditions, including joining the investigation as and when called and cooperating fully.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the allegations of cheating and dishonored cheques? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether pre-trial incarceration is justified given the nature of the dispute, which appears to be primarily a business transaction, and the petitioner's compliance with court orders and declaration of assets? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that further pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice and sought bail with stringent conditions. The State opposed bail, referring to its reply. The complainant vehemently opposed bail, alleging cheating and that the petitioner had also availed a massive amount as GST, rendering him disentitled to bail.