Shishant Mittal vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, Shishant Mittal, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 177/2022, registered for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The complainant alleged that the petitioner was provided with a card worth Rs. 20,00,000/- for services related to pine perks e-card. The petitioner allegedly used Rs. 3,98,000/- for utility services and the remaining amount for personal expenses, which he failed to return. The petitioner was granted interim protection from arrest. The matter was referred to mediation, and the petitioner assured the court of payment. Despite repeated assurances and court orders granting time to pay, the petitioner failed to pay any amount to the complainant. The petitioner claimed the dispute was civil in nature and sought bail due to personal difficulties.

Held

The Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail. The Court found, prima facie, that the petitioner had intentionally and knowingly cheated the complainant, causing significant financial loss. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had misused the interim protection granted to him by making false assurances to the Court for settling the dispute, thereby seeking extensions of the interim protection. Considering the seriousness of the accusations and the substantial amount due from the petitioner, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation might be necessary to uncover the modus operandi of the crime. Therefore, the bail application was rejected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust, and the petitioner's failure to comply with court orders regarding payment? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he has been falsely implicated and that the dispute is essentially civil in nature. He urged the court to consider his personal difficulties and grant him anticipatory bail. Respondent's arguments: The State and the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application. They highlighted the seriousness of the accusations, the substantial financial loss caused to the complainant, and the petitioner's misuse of interim protection granted by the court through false assurances of settlement.