Sanjay Shyamsunder Dubey vs. State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the allegations against the applicant are of a serious nature, involving misappropriation of steel goods in a business context. The applicant's plea that the transaction is purely civil was rejected at this stage, as the prosecution's material prima facie indicated elements of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation. The Court found that the invoice dated 16 February 2025, relied upon by the applicant to claim ownership, was categorically discredited by GST authorities, who stated it was not found in their records and no such supply transaction existed. This lent support to the allegation that the applicant used forged documents to seek relief. The Court noted that video recordings, not denied by the applicant, indicated an admission of misappropriation, and consent letters showed his responsibility for handling goods. Bill No. 152 dated 20 July 2021 and bank entries for warehouse rent corroborated the prosecution's version. The Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief not to be granted for serious allegations of economic offences, cheating, or forgery, especially when the investigation is at a crucial stage. The applicant's conduct of producing allegedly forged invoices further disentitled him from equitable relief. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, the material on record, and the stage of investigation, the Court declined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant.

Facts

The applicant, Sanjay Shyamsunder Dubey, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), apprehending arrest in connection with Crime Register No. 68 of 2025 registered at Kalamboli Police Station for an offence under Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The prosecution alleges that the applicant, acting as an agent for the informant in steel trading, misappropriated the informant's goods. The applicant claims the dispute is civil, that he was neither an employee nor an agent, and that he purchased the goods under an invoice dated 16 February 2025, which included GST payment, making him the lawful owner. The prosecution counters by presenting an email from GST authorities stating the applicant's invoice is not found in GST records and no such supply transaction exists, suggesting the applicant produced forged documents. Further, video recordings allegedly show the applicant admitting misappropriation, and consent letters indicate his responsibility for handling goods in the informant's warehouse.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dispute between the applicant and the informant is essentially a civil dispute, and if so, whether the ingredients of Section 409 BNS are attracted, considering the applicant's alleged status as neither an employee nor an agent of the informant. 2. Whether the invoice dated 16 February 2025, relied upon by the applicant to establish ownership of the goods and payment of GST, is a genuine document, or if it is a forged document intended to mislead the Court, as suggested by the GST authorities' communication. 3. Whether the applicant is disentitled to anticipatory bail due to the alleged production of forged documents and the prima facie evidence of entrustment and misappropriation, including admissions in video recordings and consent letters. Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: The dispute is civil, not criminal. The applicant was not an employee or agent. The invoice dated 16 February 2025, with GST payment, proves purchase and lawful ownership, negating entrustment and misappropriation. Revenue/State: The GST authorities have confirmed that the applicant's invoice dated 16 February 2025 is not found in GST records, and no such supply transaction exists. This indicates the applicant has produced forged documents. Video recordings show the applicant admitting misappropriation, and consent letters confirm his responsibility for handling goods. The conduct of producing forged documents disentitles the applicant to relief.