Suleman Raees Hussain Ahmed vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that, prima facie, no case of cheating or other offences under the Indian Penal Code was made out against the applicant. The Court noted that the applicant had started his company after obtaining all requisite permissions and was exporting machinery under an export license, paying GST on the exported goods. The core grievance of the complainant appeared to be that the applicant, a former employee, had commenced a similar business. The Court found this scenario to be a fit case for exercising discretion under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was allowed. The operative directions included releasing the applicant on bail upon furnishing bail bonds, reporting to the Investigating Officer on specific dates, not interfering with the complainant or witnesses, not tampering with evidence, and keeping the Investigating Officer informed of his address and contact details. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The applicant, Suleman Raees Hussain Ahmed, sought anticipatory bail in a criminal case registered for offences including cheating and forgery. The FIR was lodged by Imran Mohammed Syed, owner of Inpact Machinery Pvt. Ltd., which manufactured and exported machinery. The applicant was employed as a Manager-cum-Supervisor in this company. It was alleged that in 2017, the applicant took machine designs and manufactured similar machines for sale, tendering an apology when confronted. The grievance resurfaced when a customer complained about defective machinery, which was found to be manufactured by a company named Ali Mac Machinery, started by the applicant in his wife's name, engaging in a similar business without permission. The applicant contended he obtained necessary permissions, exported machinery under an export license, and paid GST on exported goods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations of cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust, as defined under Sections 408, 420, 465, 471, 506, and 509 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, are prima facie made out against the applicant, warranting custodial interrogation and thus disentitling him to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he had obtained all requisite permissions to start his company, Ali Mac Machinery. He further stated that he exported machinery under a valid export license and had been paying Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the exported goods. The applicant contended that the complainant's grievance was merely that the applicant, having worked as a Manager-cum-Supervisor for the complainant's company, had started a similar business, and that no case for cheating or other offences was made out. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or the complainant regarding the alleged offences or the applicant's GST compliance. The State was represented by the APP, and the Investigating Officer was present, but their detailed submissions are not elaborated in the provided text.