Md Shahid Akbar vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the allegations, even if true, primarily pointed towards civil consequences, i.e., the recovery of a due amount, and that the dispute could have been resolved through the mediation/arbitration clause stipulated in the consortium agreement. The Court noted that the informant had bypassed this contractual recourse and instead filed an FIR. The petitioner's undertaking to cooperate with the investigation was also considered. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to surrender before the concerned Court below within three weeks and, upon surrender, to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Shahid Akbar, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by the Opposite Party No. 2, Mumtaz Ahmad, alleging that the petitioner, with whom he had a consortium agreement to operate 'Daya Hospital & Research Centre' and 'Daya Pharma', misappropriated Rs. 58,94,795/-. The informant alleged that the petitioner paid a lower monthly share of gross revenue than agreed, claimed the establishment was running at a loss despite earning profits, and diverted earnings to his and his wife's accounts, including through personal Paytm QR codes, without accounting for them. The petitioner contended the FIR was lodged to recover a civil debt and that the dispute should have been resolved through mediation/arbitration as per the agreement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, if taken at face value, constitute criminal offenses or primarily give rise to civil consequences for recovery of dues, thereby warranting anticipatory bail? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Sections 406 and 420 IPC and the interpretation of the consortium agreement). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the FIR was maliciously instituted to recover a civil debt. He contended that the dispute arose from a breach of the consortium agreement dated 28.02.2022, which stipulated a 30% share of gross revenue payable to the informant (O.P.No.2), exclusive of GST. He claimed to have paid Rs. 1-1.5 Lac per month, which was within the agreed percentage. He further argued that paragraph 10 of the agreement provided for mediation/arbitration for any violations, which the informant failed to pursue. The petitioner also undertook to cooperate with the investigation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State was represented by an Additional Public Prosecutor, and no specific arguments were recorded in the judgment. The Opposite Party No. 2 (informant) argued that the petitioner committed fraud, as an audit report revealed he received customer/patient payments through his personal Paytm QR code and engaged in irregularities in maintaining accounts.