Parshant Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Parshant Singh, 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., alleging cheating and fraud of Rs. 14,00,000/-. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and his father, dealing in milk products, placed an order for milk powder worth Rs. 14 Lakhs from the complainant's company, assured payment via cheque, but dispatched only a blank photocopy of a cheque. The petitioner claimed he and his father deal in paneer, not milk powder, and that the co-accused, Ravinder Rana (salesman of the complainant), induced him to place the order. The petitioner also contended that a prior complaint by the complainant was dismissed after an inquiry found the matter to be commercial.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court noted that the petitioner admitted receiving the milk powder on 09.01.2024, which allegedly expired by 16.01.2024, less than a week later. The petitioner claimed to have informed the complainant about this, kept the goods in an adjoining field, and sent telephonic intimation. Conversely, the complainant's case is that the petitioner, despite receiving delivery, did not make full payment and sent a photocopy of a cheque. The Court also noted that the complainant had filed a petition under Section 18 of the MSME Development Act, 2006, for recovery, which was pending. Citing Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, the Court reiterated that at the bail stage, it is not required to conduct a detailed analysis of evidence, and the prima facie involvement, nature of the charge, and severity of punishment are considered. The Court concluded that it is a matter for trial to determine whether the petitioner intended to cheat or if the goods were indeed expired and unused. Therefore, delving into the merits of the allegations at this stage was not viable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the allegations of cheating and fraud amounting to Rs. 14,00,000/-? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the FIR was lodged to arm-twist him, as a previous complaint by the complainant was dismissed after an inquiry by the DSP, EO Wing, Bathinda, which found the matter to be of commercial transactions. He also contended that the milk powder supplied was nearly expired, a fact communicated to the complainant, and that the goods were not utilized. He relied on the fact that the goods were delivered on 09.01.2024 and expired on 16.01.2024, and that he had informed the complainant about this. State's arguments: The State opposed the prayer, arguing that the petitioner connived with other accused, including the complainant's salesman, to cheat the complainant. The co-accused Rishi Raj (petitioner's father) received the consignment worth Rs. 14 lakhs and refused to make payment, making false pretexts about the material being expired, which the State claims was a plea taken much later, only after the FIR was filed. The State also highlighted that the petitioner, even after receiving delivery, did not make full payment and sent a photocopy of a cheque. The complainant had also initiated proceedings under Section 18 of the MSME Development Act, 2006, for recovery.