Ravinder Rana vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court noted that the petitioner admitted the delivery of milk powder to the co-accused on 09.01.2024, which was alleged to be expiring within a week. The Court observed that it was a matter for trial to determine whether the petitioner was involved and connived with the co-accused to avoid payment, or if the milk powder received was nearly expired and not utilized. The Court emphasized that it was not its role at the stage of granting bail to delve into the merits of the allegations or conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence, citing Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee. The Court found that the prima facie involvement, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of punishment, and character of the accused were factors to be considered, and these required testing before the trial court with cogent evidence. Therefore, the concession of anticipatory bail was denied.

Facts

The petitioner, Ravinder Rana, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 103 dated 05.09.2024, registered under Sections 420/120-B IPC at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda. The FIR was filed by Tajinder Kumar Bansal, Director of M/s Bansal Milk Chilling Centre Pvt. Ltd. The complainant alleged that Prashant and Rishi Raj, owners of M/s Shri Banke Bihari Foods, ordered milk powder worth Rs. 14,00,000/- from the complainant's firm, with the petitioner acting as a salesman for Prashant and Rishi Raj. The complainant dispatched the milk powder on 09.01.2024 via e-way invoice No GST-811. Subsequently, Prashant and Rishi Raj allegedly sent a blank photocopy of a cheque and threatened the complainant. The complainant claimed the petitioner was an accomplice and co-conspirator in the alleged fraud.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420/120-B IPC, considering his alleged role as a salesman facilitating the transaction and the subsequent non-payment? (Question of law and fact, turning on Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he was merely a salesman for the firm run by Prashant and Rishi Raj, who dealt in paneer, and was not the beneficiary of the transaction. He contended that the complainant had previously filed a complaint before the DSP, EO Wing, Bathinda, which was found to be a matter of commercial transaction and was consigned, and that the current FIR was lodged to arm-twist him. The petitioner also claimed that the milk powder was nearly expired upon delivery. State's Contention: The State opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner connived with the other accused, who received the consignment worth Rs. 14 lakhs and refused payment. The State asserted that the plea of the material being expired was a false pretext taken by the co-accused much later, only after the FIR was filed.