Ankit Yadav vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Ankit Yadav, is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 121/2024 registered under Section 420 of the IPC. The prosecution alleges that the complainant transferred an advance of Rs. 6,72,000/- to the applicant for the supply of Neilgiri trees at a rate of Rs. 7200/- per Ton. The applicant also issued a bill for 150 Ton and sent an E-Way bill, against which Rs. 40,248/- GST was paid by the complainant. However, the applicant allegedly failed to supply the Neilgiri trees within 15 days and became unreachable, leading to the complainant filing a report for cheating. The applicant was arrested on 19.07.2024, and a charge sheet has been filed. The applicant claims to have a business relationship with the complainant for five years and that the delay was due to issues with cutting trees. He also stated he provided cheques amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- which the complainant did not present.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant. While acknowledging the nature and gravity of the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and the fact that the applicant allegedly did not return the money or the goods, the Court considered several factors. These included the applicant's period of detention since 19.07.2024, the fact that the applicant is a supplier of Neelgiri woods, and the applicant's contention that the delay was due to issues with cutting trees. The Court also noted that besides the present case, another case was registered against the applicant, listed before the same Court, and that there was only one criminal antecedent of the applicant from 2024. Crucially, the charge-sheet had been filed. The Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, found it inclined to grant bail. The applicant was released on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions including not seeking adjournments, remaining present in court, and facing proceedings for misuse of liberty as per BNSS provisions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the allegations of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC and the amount involved (Rs. 6,72,000/- advance payment and Rs. 40,248/- GST). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contends that he has been falsely implicated and that the prosecution has not produced sufficient documents to substantiate the transaction. He argues that the entire case stems from a commercial transaction where the delay in supply, not an intent to cheat, is the issue. He further states that he has a long-standing business relationship with the complainant, has provided cheques for a significant amount, and the complainant has made late payments in the past. The applicant has been in jail since 19.07.2024, and the trial is expected to take time. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposes the bail application, submitting that the applicant allegedly cheated the complainant of ₹6,72,000/- by failing to supply Nilgiri woods after receiving an advance payment and issuing a bill and E-Way bill, thereby not being entitled to bail.