Kamta Haridas Soni vs. State Of Maharashtra

Held

The High Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail. The Court acknowledged that in normal circumstances, a dispute over failure to deliver goods might be considered civil, especially if there was no initial dishonest intention. However, the Court found a "disturbing feature" that disentitled the applicant from the relief of pre-arrest bail: the applicant's alleged attempt to mislead the Court of Session by tendering forged invoices. The GST number on these invoices was found to have been cancelled before the date of their issue. The Court also noted the applicant's inconsistent stand before the High Court regarding the sale and delivery of gold and repayment of amounts. The Court concluded that producing false documents to obtain a favourable order from a lower court disentitled the applicant from discretionary relief. The prima facie observations were confined to the determination of entitlement to pre-arrest bail only.

Facts

The applicant, Kamta Haridas Soni, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case registered for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The first informant alleged that the applicant, who runs a jewellery shop, induced him to part with Rs. 18,70,000/- through banking channels and a further Rs. 18,00,000/- in cash, promising gold of equivalent value and 5% monthly interest. The applicant allegedly failed to deliver the gold and only returned Rs. 3,40,000/-. The applicant contended that only Rs. 18,70,000/- was credited, the cash amount was never paid, and a substantial amount was returned, arguing the dispute was civil in nature. The Additional Sessions Judge noted that the applicant attempted to mislead the court by submitting forged invoices where the GST number was cancelled prior to the invoice date.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the dispute was primarily of a civil nature, as the core issue was the failure to deliver goods after receiving payment. They contended that custodial interrogation was not warranted and that a substantial amount had been returned. They also disputed the claim of cash payment. Respondent's Arguments: The State, through the learned APP, highlighted the allegations of inducement and failure to deliver gold. Crucially, they pointed to the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge that the applicant had attempted to mislead the court by producing forged invoices, with a cancelled GST number, indicating dishonest intent from the inception of the transaction. This conduct disentitled the applicant from discretionary relief.