Geeta Mahesh Gandhi vs. State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the subject matter of C.R. No. 26 of 2026 is predominantly a commercial transaction of a civil nature. The non-payment of invoices for chemical supplies and the dishonouring of cheques were depicted as criminal offences. The Court found that the ingredients of the alleged offence were prima facie lacking, and the Investigating Officer did not seek recovery of any documents from the Applicant. The balance tilted in favour of protecting the Applicant's liberty, especially as the prosecution had not demonstrated the necessity of custodial interrogation. Therefore, a case was made out for granting pre-arrest bail. The Court allowed the application, releasing the Applicant on bail with specific conditions including reporting to the Investigating Officer and not tampering with evidence. Observations were limited to the grant of pre-arrest bail.

Facts

The Applicant, Geeta Mahesh Gandhi, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0038 of 2026, later re-numbered as C.R. No. 26 of 2026, registered with EOW, Mumbai. The FIR was based on a complaint by Respondent No. 2, Director of Chemical Corp Pvt. Ltd. Respondent No. 2 alleged that BMG Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., where the Applicant and her husband are Directors, failed to pay for chemicals supplied. The dispute arose from non-payment of invoices. The Applicant argued that this was a purely commercial dispute cloaked in criminal proceedings. The State contended that the Applicant and her husband initially cooperated but later stopped. Respondent No. 2 highlighted the dishonouring of cheques and the Applicant's alleged improper availing of Input Tax Credit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dispute arising from non-payment of invoices for chemical supplies, coupled with dishonoured cheques, constitutes a criminal offence warranting the registration of FIR No. 0038 of 2026 (C.R. No. 26 of 2026) and custodial interrogation, or if it is a civil dispute. Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: The transaction is a pure commercial dispute, a civil matter cloaked in criminal garb, lacking any element of criminality. The Applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail. Revenue/State: The Applicant and her husband initially cooperated but subsequently stopped cooperating with the investigation. Respondent No. 2 argued that the Applicant availed Input Tax Credit improperly and that the dishonouring of cheques indicates a criminal intent. They also referred to proceedings under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.