Mayur B Padia vs. State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the applicant was initially not involved in the dealings between the complainant and co-accused Jitin. The mortgage agreement clarified that the applicant acted purely as a surety to assist the company and Jitin, with no commercial or financial interest. The agreement also contained a dispute resolution clause for arbitration. The Court noted that the complainant filed a NC complaint prior to the FIR, and the applicant had appeared before the investigating officer and provided documents. Prima facie, the dispute arose from a business transaction and appeared to be of a civil nature. The necessary documents were already with the investigating agency. The Court found that the prosecution's apprehension about tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses could be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application was allowed.

Facts

The applicant, a Chartered Accountant, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case registered for offences under Sections 409, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that a co-accused, Jitin Masand, engaged in the trade of LED Televisions through Okie Ventures Pvt. Ltd., defrauded the complainant through a series of investments involving defective goods. The applicant was introduced to the complainant to assist in recovering outstanding dues and allegedly assured compensation for losses in exchange for GST work. The complainant invested substantial sums, received defective goods, and faced dishonoured cheques. A mortgage agreement was executed, with the applicant's property as collateral, and a cheque of Rs. 85,00,000/- was issued. The complainant later filed an FIR after the applicant allegedly resigned from directorship and cancelled the agreement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, primarily concerning a dispute with co-accused Jitin Masand, unjustly implicate the applicant, a chartered accountant, who claims no financial dealings with the complainant and argues the dispute is civil in nature, especially given the existence of a mortgage agreement and a delay in filing the FIR. 2. Whether the material on record prima facie suggests the commission of offences under Sections 409, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant, considering the prosecution's contention that the applicant and co-accused sold defective goods and induced further investment, and that the applicant terminated the agreement upon demand for refund. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the dispute is civil, the applicant has no financial dealings with the complainant, the FIR is belated and unexplained, and no offence under the IPC is prima facie made out as the applicant neither caused loss nor intended to deceive. The applicant is willing to cooperate with the investigation. Revenue's Arguments: The State argued that the applicant and co-accused sold defective goods, induced further investment, and the applicant terminated the agreement when a refund was demanded. They contended that the investigation is ongoing and the applicant might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if granted bail.