Manish Prasad Jaiswal vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Manish Prasad Jaiswal, is seeking anticipatory bail in Dhaka P.S. Case No. 655 of 2022, registered for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that the petitioner borrowed iron and steel worth Rs. 8,00,620/- on 01.11.2021 for one month but failed to return the money. The case was lodged after nine months. The petitioner contends that he and the informant had prior business transactions, no other complaints exist, and no documents signed by him were produced. He also stated that his father's business, 'Manish Traders', closed after his father's death on 26.04.2021, and he filed for GST cancellation on 31.10.2021. The opposite party argued that the petitioner committed fraud and intended to cheat from the beginning, noting the GST cancellation was filed just before billing.
Held
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It reasoned that the allegations in the FIR primarily pertained to the petitioner not honoring a promise to repay money, which appeared to be a civil dispute arising from business transactions. The Court considered the existing business dealings between the petitioner and the informant and the petitioner's lack of criminal antecedents. The ratio decidendi is that disputes arising from business transactions, where the core issue is the non-repayment of dues, should generally be treated as civil matters, and anticipatory bail may be granted if other conditions are met. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties, subject to cooperation with the investigation and trial.
Key Issues
1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, primarily concerning the non-repayment of money for business transactions, constitute criminal offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, or if they represent a civil dispute. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the transactions were purely business-related, with no prior complaints. He claimed no documents signed by him were produced and that his business had ceased operations after his father's death, with GST cancellation filed prior to the alleged transaction date. He emphasized the lack of criminal intent. Opposite Party's arguments: The opposite party contended that the petitioner acted with fraudulent intent from the outset, evidenced by filing for GST cancellation just before the billing, implying an attempt to evade responsibility. They argued that the petitioner's actions constituted fraud and cheating.
Sections Cited
Section 406, Section 420, Section 438(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 7 02-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the OP.No.2 and the State.
Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Dhaka P.S.Case No. 655 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegation made in the FIR is that the informant is the owner of S.A .Traders while the petitioner has a shop of iron steel and cement and the petitioner used to take cement, iron and steel from the shop of the informant. It is alleged that on 01.11.2021, the petitioner had borrowed iron and steel worth Rs. 8,00620/- from the shop of the informant for one month but 2/3 thereafter, he did not return the money as per his promise and after lapse of nine months the present case has been lodged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the informant have business transaction since earlier and no other complaint has been made with regard to earlier transactions. He further submits that the petitioner never took anything on credit and the informant has not produced any chit of paper signed by the petitioner. It has also been submitted that Manish traders belonged to his father, who had died on 26.04.2021 whereafter, the business was closed. The petitioner has already filed a cancellation petition for cancellation of GST on 31.10.2021.The relevant documents have been brought on record.
Learned counsel for O.P.No. 2 however opposes the anticipatory bail, besides others, on the ground that the petitioner has played fraud and his intention to cheat the petitioner has been right from the beginning and he has filed for cancellation of the GST just a day before the billing was done and till that day the GST was valid.
Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties and also considering the fact that the petitioner and the inforamnt were having business transactions and the allegation in the FIR is more or less in the nature of petitioner 3/3 not honoring the promise to pay back the money, which primarily seems to be a civil dispute arising out of business transactions, I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner who has no criminal antecedent. Accordingly, in the event of his arrest/ surrender within a period of four weeks from today the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000/- (ten thousand)with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahna at Dhaka, Motihari in Dhaka P.S.Case No. 655 of 2022, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C and subject to the further condition that the petitioners shall co-operate in investigation/ trial.
However, the petitioner undertakes to make himself available as and when required before the investigating officer till the completion of investigation and he further under takes to co-operate in the trail by making himself available on each and every date unless some very strong and unavoidable reason for absence.
N.K/- (Soni Shrivastava, J) U T
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.