Satyendra Singh vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Satyendra Singh, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the CrPC apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 345/2021 registered at Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, for offences under Sections 420 read with 34 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and another individual received Rs. 84,57,901/- from complainant Reeta Nibhani, proprietor of Nikita Marketing, for the supply of fresh mango juice, but failed to supply the goods, thereby cheating the complainant. The applicant contended that there was a long-standing business relationship with Nikita Marketing since 2017, involving transactions totaling Rs. 2,50,00,000/-. He claimed a freight charge of Rs. 15,78,800/- was due from Nikita Marketing, and his company's ledger showed an outstanding balance of Rs. 24,67,565.48. The applicant also filed an FIR in Varanasi and provided GST registration and tax invoices as evidence of business dealings. He argued the dispute was civil in nature.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. While acknowledging the arguments presented by both sides, the Court placed significant weight on the ledger account of the applicant, which indicated an outstanding amount due from the complainant firm. The Court also considered the fact that the applicant had already lodged an FIR regarding this matter and that there had been regular business transactions between the applicant's firm and the complainant's firm since 2017. Without making any definitive comments on the merits of the case, the Court found sufficient grounds to grant anticipatory bail. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety, along with several conditions including not tampering with evidence, appearing in court, submitting property details, and not engaging in similar offences in the future. The issue of whether the dispute was exclusively civil or criminal in nature was not explicitly decided, but the Court's inclination to grant bail suggests a prima facie view that the civil aspect warranted consideration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, considering the allegations of cheating and the evidence presented by both parties? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature, citing a long-standing business relationship with the complainant since 2017, with significant transactions and outstanding dues owed to his company. He presented documentary evidence, including GST registration, tax invoices, and ledger accounts, to support his claim of a business transaction and an outstanding balance from the complainant. He also highlighted that he had lodged a counter-FIR in Uttar Pradesh. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed the bail application, highlighting the applicant's alleged criminal antecedents, including four registered cases for offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC in Rajasthan and Maharashtra, and two complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Kolkata. The State also mentioned that the applicant was a bank defaulter and his company's assets had been seized. Furthermore, the State contended that the documents produced by the applicant were not part of the case diary.