Narendra Ramniwas Bajaj vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

Held

The Court held that an anticipatory bail application is maintainable even before an FIR is lodged if the applicant demonstrates a genuine apprehension of arrest based on a complaint, citing the Sushila Aggarwal judgment. On the merits, the Court found that the complaint, supported by GST bills, invoices, and evidence of dishonoured cheques, indicated a criminal element beyond a mere civil dispute. The applicant's admission of prior proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the existence of two earlier FIRs with identical allegations of cheating and the same modus operandi, coupled with the large sum involved, prima facie suggested an intention to cheat from the inception. The Court concluded that the applicant's past criminal antecedents and the evident intention to cheat made it unsuitable to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, the application was rejected. The interim application was also disposed of.

Facts

The applicant, Kunal Anilkumar Gupta, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest following a complaint filed by Narendra Ramnivas Bajaj, power of attorney holder for Gopal Yarna Traders. The complaint, dated March 16, 2026, led to a notice under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita. The applicant claimed the dispute was civil, arising from business transactions in 2022-2023, where Rs. 1,23,00,000 remained to be paid due to business losses. The respondent (State and complainant) argued the applicant induced the complainant with a fraudulent export license, receiving cloth material worth Rs. 1,98,51,265 between December 10, 2022, and January 16, 2023, with Rs. 1,23,72,661 outstanding. Thirty-three dishonoured cheques were issued for the balance. The complainant provided GST bills and invoices, and investigations indicated the material was forwarded to Gujarat firms, from which the applicant received substantial amounts. The applicant also allegedly cheated banks and had prior FIRs for similar conduct.

Key Issues

1. Whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable prior to the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) when the applicant apprehends arrest based on a complaint? (Question of law, relying on Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)). 2. Whether the present complaint, alleging fraudulent inducement and non-payment for goods, discloses a criminal offense warranting denial of anticipatory bail, or is it primarily a civil dispute? (Question of mixed law and fact). Contentions: Petitioner: The matter is a civil dispute given a criminal color to extract money. The applicant is making efforts to repay the outstanding amount. There is a delay in lodging the FIR, and the complaint lacks substance, relying only on two prior FIRs. The applicant is ready to abide by any conditions. Revenue/State: The applicant used a forged export license, received goods worth crores, issued dishonoured cheques, and profited from the supplied material. The applicant has a history of similar cheating offenses, evidenced by two prior FIRs (FIR No. 0114 of 2024 and 0554 of 2023) and proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The modus operandi indicates an intention to cheat from the inception, making anticipatory bail inappropriate.