Smt Barkha Bothra vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the existing business relationship between the applicants and the complainant, the prior completion of numerous transactions, and the apparent fact that the consideration amount was not paid this time due to some problem. The applicants did not deny the outstanding balance and expressed willingness to pay it. Considering these circumstances, the Court found it to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The operative directions were to release the applicants on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety each, subject to conditions including making themselves available for interrogation, not inducing or threatening witnesses, not acting prejudicially to a fair trial, and appearing before the trial court until the disposal of the trial.

Facts

The applicants, Smt Barkha Bothra and Ravindra Prakash Bothra, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 10/2023 registered at Police Station- Pandri, District Raipur, for offences under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that the applicants' firm purchased 139.170 metric tons of TMT rods worth Rs. 89,00,000/- between July 28, 2022, and August 9, 2022, but failed to pay the consideration. The applicants argued they are innocent, the matter is a civil dispute regarding recovery of payment, and the offence under Section 420 IPC is not attracted. They highlighted their prior business relationship and willingness to pay. The objector/non-applicant No. 2 contended it was a deliberate business transaction where material was taken, sold to another party, input tax credit was received, causing a loss of Rs. 89 lacs, supported by a GST Report and ledger account.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the allegations of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? Petitioner's arguments: The applicants contended that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. They argued that the dispute is merely a matter of recovering consideration amount and that the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is not attracted. They further submitted that they have a business relationship with the complainant, have completed many transactions previously, and are ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by court directions, thus seeking anticipatory bail. Revenue/State's arguments: The counsel for the State opposed the application for anticipatory bail. The objector/non-applicant No. 2 argued that it was a deliberate business transaction where the applicants took the material, sold it to another party, received input tax credit, and caused a total loss of Rs. 89 lacs, as evidenced by the GST Report and ledger account.