Shiv Shankar Mishra vs. State (Nct Of Delhi)

Facts

The petitioner, Shiv Shankar Mishra, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 773/2024, registered under Sections 318/316/61(2)/3(5) of the BNS. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, proprietor of M/s Shri Ram Polymers, and his brother Umesh Mishra, conspired to cheat the complainant, Abhishek Jindal, by taking delivery of 29 tons of PVC Resin worth Rs. 29,80,090/- from M/s Om Sai Plastic on the complainant's guarantee. The goods were delivered to M/s Shri Ram Polymers. Despite assurances, payment was not made, and the petitioner allegedly refused to cooperate with the investigation and threatened the complainant. The petitioner claimed the dispute was civil and the goods were supplied by the complainant's firm, not M/s Om Sai Plastics, and that a part payment of Rs. 4 lakhs was made. The petitioner also stated he was unaware of his brother's whereabouts.

Held

The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application. The Court observed that the petitioner's stand was contradictory, noting that he initially denied receiving any goods but later claimed his brother handled the transaction. The transporter's statement clearly indicated that the goods were unloaded at the petitioner's firm's address, and the petitioner was present during the unloading. The Court found that the subject goods, valued at Rs. 29,80,090/-, were yet to be recovered. Consequently, the Court held that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required for the recovery of the goods and to ascertain the whereabouts of his co-accused brother, Umesh Mishra. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were for the purpose of the bail application and did not constitute an opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present FIR is essentially a civil dispute, as argued by the petitioner, or does it disclose cognizable offenses of cheating and criminal breach of trust, as contended by the State? 2. Whether the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary for the recovery of the goods worth Rs. 29,80,090/- and to ascertain the whereabouts of the co-accused, Umesh Mishra? 3. Whether the petitioner's conduct, including alleged contradictory statements and non-cooperation with the investigation, warrants denial of anticipatory bail? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the FIR is civil in nature, alleging that the goods were supplied by the complainant's firm, M/s Rama Polychem LLP, not M/s Om Sai Plastics. He claimed there were ongoing business transactions and a part payment of Rs. 4 lakhs was made. He also stated he was unaware of the transaction as his brother handled it and denied receiving any goods himself. State's Arguments: The State argued that the petitioner's stand was contradictory. They presented evidence from a transporter stating the goods were delivered to the petitioner's firm, and the petitioner was present during unloading. They also highlighted that the petitioner initially denied receiving any goods, contradicting his later claim that his brother received them. The State emphasized the need for custodial interrogation for recovery and to locate the co-accused, and that the investigation was in its initial stages.