Manas Madhav Mandal vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the allegations in the FIR, when read with the material on record, clearly disclose a prima facie case of criminal breach of trust under Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court found that the applicant had admitted receiving 2,689 grams of gold in a recorded conversation reflected in the panchanama, which was prepared in the presence of independent witnesses and carries a presumption of correctness. An acknowledgment of receipt of gold, bearing the applicant's signature, further supported the case of entrustment. The Court noted the applicant's conduct after the alleged transaction, including offering a settlement and provoking legal proceedings, raised serious doubts about his bona fides and indicated an intent to evade responsibility. The applicant's failure to produce contemporaneous records to disprove receipt of gold, coupled with his false plea of no business relationship before the Sessions Court, undermined his credibility and disentitled him to equitable relief. The Court concluded that custodial interrogation was necessary for recovery of the gold and verification of facts, and granting anticipatory bail would hamper the investigation. The judgments relied upon by the complainant were found to be squarely applicable.

Facts

The applicant, Manas Madhav Mandal, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) registered for offences under Sections 316(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The informant, Abhishek Ashokkumar Jain, alleged that he entrusted gold to the applicant, who runs a jewellery manufacturing unit, for making ornaments between 2023 and 2025. On June 9, 2025, the applicant claimed the work was ongoing. Subsequently, he stated the gold was handed to another artisan and offered to return jewellery or refund the value, issuing two cheques of Rs. 1 crore each. The informant suspected foul play, and during a meeting at the applicant's advocate's office, the applicant allegedly admitted receiving 2,689 grams of gold and offered to transfer property. The advocate reportedly suggested a Rs. 1 crore settlement and advised the applicant would secure bail. The FIR was registered based on these allegations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, when read with the material on record, disclose a prima facie case of criminal breach of trust under Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, warranting custodial interrogation? The petitioner argued that there was no specific voucher for the gold, that the dispute arose from private financial dealings in a business partnership, and that the panchanama was selectively recorded. The petitioner further alleged the informant stole blank cheques and fabricated the case. The respondent State argued that the applicant misappropriated 2,689 grams of gold valued at Rs. 2.66 crore, supported by an acknowledgment signed by the applicant and payments of TDS and GST on labour charges, proving a business relationship. The respondent also relied on a panchanama recording a video conversation where the applicant admitted an obligation to return gold. The respondent cited Supreme Court judgments in Ghanshyam v. State of Rajasthan and Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay to establish entrustment and fiduciary relationship.