Padam vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court dismissed the bail applications of the petitioners, Sheetal and Padam. The Court found that the investigation indicated the petitioners were actively involved in a conspiracy with co-accused Harsh Garg and Sarvesh alias Vinod to defraud the complainants. The prosecution's evidence suggested that the petitioners received goods from the complainants, purportedly through a fake firm named Vandana Fabrics, and illegally sold them in the market, causing a loss of approximately three crores. The Court noted that the documents submitted by the petitioners, purporting to show purchases, were found to be forged, with non-existent GST numbers and firm details. The Court also observed that the petitioners were in constant contact with the main accused, indicating their active role. Given the ongoing investigation and the potential for further recovery and disclosure through custodial interrogation, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The Court also noted that previous attempts by the petitioners to evade custodial investigation through Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitions had also failed.

Facts

The petitioners, Sheetal and Padam, filed multiple bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending arrest in connection with numerous FIRs registered at Police Station Pratapnagar, District Bhilwara. These FIRs alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The petitioners, engaged in business in Delhi, claimed to have received goods from co-accused Harsh Garg and Sarvesh alias Vinod, asserting they were mere consumers with no direct involvement in the alleged crime. They contended the matter was civil in nature, concerning non-payment of dues rather than cheating. The prosecution, however, argued that documents submitted by the petitioners, including GST details and firm names, were fabricated and non-existent. The investigation suggested the petitioners conspired with Harsh Garg and Sarvesh alias Vinod to dupe complainants of approximately three crores by selling goods illegally after inducing the complainants to deliver them.

Key Issues

1. Whether the alleged non-payment of dues constitutes a civil dispute or an offence of cheating and criminal misappropriation under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, turning on the interpretation of the petitioners' role and intent. 2. Whether the documents submitted by the petitioners, including GST details and firm names, are fabricated, and if so, what is the implication for their bail applications. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the dispute was purely civil, involving alleged non-payment of dues, and not criminal in nature. They claimed to be mere consumers who received goods from co-accused Harsh Garg and Sarvesh alias Vinod and had no direct involvement in the alleged crime. They also stated that the police had recovered the goods, negating the need for custodial investigation. Revenue's Arguments: The State argued that the investigation revealed fabricated documents submitted by the petitioners, including non-existent GST numbers and firm details. They contended that the petitioners, in conspiracy with Harsh Garg and Sarvesh alias Vinod, induced complainants to deliver goods, which were then illegally sold by the petitioners after the co-accused absconded. This, they argued, constituted cheating and fraud, and custodial investigation was necessary for further clues regarding misappropriated goods.