Suyash Jaiswal vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Suyash Jaiswal, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 454, dated 01.12.2022, registered under Sections 420, 406, and 120-B IPC at Police Station Sector 31, Faridabad. The petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged to recover alleged money, stemming from a dispute over profit sharing from a proprietorship firm. The petitioner held a Mineral Dealer Licence in UP, and the complainant supplied minerals to Haryana. A civil suit for recovery was already filed by the petitioner. The petitioner claimed GST had been paid and argued the dispute was civil in nature. The complainant alleged cheating and violation of contract terms, and the State argued the petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation, specifically regarding the recovery of sand. The High Court had granted interim bail on 09.01.2023.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail. The precise allegation in the FIR pertained to a dispute over commission payable to the complainant. Considering the petitioner had been granted interim relief in January 2023 and had joined the investigation, the interim order granting bail was made absolute, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The Court clarified that this order was not a blanket protection and was confined to the specific FIR, not extending to other offences. It also stated that the order did not restrict the police's right to investigate and that the police could seek cancellation of bail if the petitioner violated any terms. The Court explicitly noted that its observations were not an opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 454, dated 01.12.2022, under Sections 420, 406, and 120-B IPC, considering the nature of the allegations and the pendency of a civil dispute? Petitioner's arguments: The FIR is a ruse to recover money, disguising a civil dispute as a criminal one. A civil suit for recovery is already pending. GST has been paid, and the dispute is civil in nature, to be decided by a civil court. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is ready to join the investigation. Respondent State's arguments: The petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation, specifically concerning the recovery of sand. Complainant's arguments: The petitioner forged bills, leading to GST evasion, making the allegations serious and disentitling the petitioner to pre-arrest bail.