Nirav Prafulbhai Patel vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the applicant. It acknowledged that there were allegations and counter-allegations between the parties. The Court noted that a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been issued and replied to by the applicant, and that the applicant had also filed a complaint against another individual. The Court found that these facts, along with other circumstances, warranted examination during the trial. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, the Court deemed it a fit case to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to several conditions including not misusing liberty, not acting prejudicially to the prosecution, surrendering his passport, not leaving India without permission, and providing his residential address. The Court made no specific finding on the GST aspect beyond the petitioner's submission that no credit was taken.

Facts

The petitioner, Nirav Prafulbhai Patel, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with FIR No. 11210002201869 of 2020, registered at Sachin GIDC Police Station, District Surat, for offences including cheating and criminal breach of trust. The petitioner claimed he had not received yarns prior to the alleged misdeeds and had filed a complaint on 22.08.2020 and a reply to a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He stated that four cheques were under stop payment instruction and that the complaint suppressed material facts. The petitioner asserted it was a commercial transaction where accused no. 1 misused his identity and name, and that no credit had been taken on GST. The State, represented by the APP, argued that both accused intended to cheat from the beginning, and the stop payment instruction was issued with that intent. They submitted that 38 e-payment messages evidenced the petitioner's knowledge of the transactions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust, and the counter-allegations made by the parties. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he had not received the goods (yarns) and had taken steps to address the situation by filing a complaint and replying to a notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act. He contended that the transaction was purely commercial, that his identity was misused, and that no GST credit was availed, suggesting the matter might be a civil dispute rather than a criminal one. He highlighted the suppression of facts by the complainant regarding his prior actions. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State argued that the petitioner's intention to cheat was evident from the beginning, particularly from the stop payment instruction issued on the cheques. They presented evidence of 38 e-payment messages to demonstrate the petitioner's awareness of the transactions, refuting his claim of ignorance.