Ankit Yadav vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Ankit Yadav, is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. 119/2024 registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleges that the complainant, Narendra Babu, transferred an advance of Rs. 1,75,000/- to the applicant for the supply of Neilgiri trees at Rs. 7200/- per Ton. The applicant issued a bill for 27.950 Ton and an E-Way bill for which Rs. 40,248/- GST was paid. However, the applicant failed to supply the goods within 15 days and became unreachable, leading to the FIR. The applicant was arrested on July 7, 2024, and charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant contends he has been falsely implicated in a commercial transaction and that the FIR was lodged prematurely.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the period of detention of the applicant since July 7, 2024. It noted that the applicant is a supplier of Neilgiri woods and the allegation is of cheating. The Court also took into account that besides the present case, another case is registered against the applicant, listed before the same Court, and that the applicant has only one criminal antecedent from 2024. With the charge-sheet having been filed, the Court was inclined to grant bail without commenting on the merits of the case. The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to several conditions including not seeking adjournments, remaining present on each date fixed, and facing proceedings for misuse of liberty or absence as per the BNSS.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC and the facts of the case? The applicant argued that the case involves a commercial transaction where the FIR was lodged prematurely, without giving sufficient time for the applicant to fulfill his obligations. The applicant also claimed to have been falsely implicated and highlighted that the trial is likely to take time. The applicant is in jail since July 19, 2024. The State opposed the bail application, submitting that the applicant allegedly cheated the complainant of ₹2,15,000/- by failing to deliver Nilgiri goods after receiving an advance and GST amount, and that the applicant is not entitled to bail.