Shubham Singhal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicants, Shubham Singhal and Jaya Singhal, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 334/2026 registered at Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, for offences under Sections 318(4), 331(3), 338, and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the applicants induced the complainant to invest money, failed to return it, and used forged documents to deprive her of her shareholding, constituting cheating and fraud. The applicants contended that the dispute was civil and commercial, arising from a partnership business where the complainant had retired after reconstitution deeds were executed and registered. They further argued that the complainant had executed partnership and banking documents, and the FIR was a counter-blast to a legal notice they had issued seeking accounts and refund of excess withdrawals. They also highlighted that the case was based on documentary evidence and that Applicant No. 1 had a previous CGST offence for which he was on bail.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. It considered the submissions from both sides, the material in the case diary, and the nature of the allegations. The Court noted that the dispute arose from a partnership business between the parties, where the complainant was the sister of Applicant No. 1 and sister-in-law of Applicant No. 2. The Court found it significant that reconstitution deeds were duly executed and registered, and the complainant had executed various banking documents related to the partnership. Furthermore, the Court observed that the allegations were substantially based on documentary evidence. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court concluded that it was a fit case to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail. The applicants were directed to furnish a personal bond with one surety each, and specific conditions were imposed, including not inducing witnesses, not acting prejudicially to the trial, appearing before the trial court, submitting identity documents, and not engaging in similar offences in the future.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations of cheating and fraud in a partnership business dispute, involving alleged forged documents and failure to return invested amounts, warrant the denial of anticipatory bail to the applicants under Sections 318(4), 331(3), 338, and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants argued that the dispute was civil and commercial in nature, stemming from a partnership business. They asserted that the complainant had retired pursuant to duly executed and registered reconstitution deeds and had herself executed various partnership and banking documents. They contended that the FIR was a retaliatory measure following their legal notice for excess withdrawals. They emphasized that the case relied solely on documentary evidence, negating the need for custodial interrogation or recovery. They also pointed out that Applicant No. 2 had no criminal antecedents, and Applicant No. 1's prior CGST offence had resulted in bail granted over five years prior without misuse. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State Counsel countered by stating that Applicant No. 1 had three previous criminal antecedents, including a prior GST fraud offence. The complainant's counsel added that the applicants had also acted fraudulently with the complainant's maternal uncle in similar business affairs.