Gulshan Ahuja And Another vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioners, Gulshan Ahuja and another, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 128 dated 22.08.2023, registered under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC, with Sections 465, 467, 468, and 471 IPC added later. The FIR was lodged at Police Station City-I, District Mansa. Petitioner No. 1 is the Director of the accused firm, and Petitioner No. 2 is the son of Petitioner No. 1, not involved in the firm's management. Business transactions occurred between the accused firm and the complainant firm for five years. The accused firm had paid Rs. 8.5 crores out of Rs. 9 crores for goods purchased, with approximately Rs. 58 lakhs remaining in dispute. The complainant had initiated a civil remedy for this amount, which was pending before the Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Mansa. A separate dispute regarding GST payment was also pending before the High Court.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The petitioners had joined the investigation on 07.12.2023, as directed by the Court's previous order dated 30.11.2023. The State counsel, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners were not required for further custodial interrogation. The complainant's counsel opposed the bail, but the Court, considering the statement made by the State counsel and the compliance with the earlier order, made the interim bail absolute. The petitioners were directed to abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The Court noted that its observations were not to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and the trial court was to proceed without prejudice. No specific issue was left undecided; the primary issue of anticipatory bail was decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust? The petitioners argued that Petitioner No. 2 was not involved in the firm's management and that a significant portion of the payment had been made. They highlighted that the remaining amount was subject to a pending civil dispute before the Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and that a separate writ petition concerning GST payment was also pending. They relied on Supreme Court judgments concerning anticipatory bail, including Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. Vs. State of Punjab, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, and Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State of NCT Delhi. The respondent-State, through the learned State counsel, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. The complainant's senior counsel also vehemently opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioners had not approached the court with clean hands and that their intention to cheat was evident from the inception. They pointed out that a compromise relied upon by the petitioners was not signed by the complainant or any witness.