Madan Prasad vs. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Madan Prasad, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 913/2021 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg, for offences under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that an agreement was made on September 7, 2021, between Smt. Neelam Lumba and Brijkishore Das for renting a transit mixer at Rs. 2,20,000 per month plus 18% GST. Brijkishore Das failed to pay the rent, leading to an FIR lodged by Neelam Lumba against Brijkishore Das, Madan Prasad (the applicant), and Trishit Sen. The applicant claimed he was not involved in the offence and had paid rental amounts for two months, providing a receipt. The objector argued that the applicant was a partner in the firm run by Brijkishore Das, which received the mixer, making them liable for the rent.

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The primary issue was the applicant's entitlement to anticipatory bail. The Court considered that the agreement for the mixer rental was entered into between the complainant and Brijkishore Das on September 7, 2021. It was noted that Brijkishore Das failed to pay the rental amount for a considerable period, leading to the FIR. Crucially, the Court observed that the applicant was not a party to the agreement. Based on this fact, the Court found it inclined to extend the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. to the applicant. The operative direction was to release the applicant on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000, subject to specific conditions including not inducing witnesses, not acting prejudicially to the trial, making himself available for interrogation, and not involving himself in similar future offences. The Court clarified that its observations were solely for the purpose of considering the bail application and would not bind the trial court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given his alleged involvement in a rent default case? Petitioner's Argument: The applicant contended that he was not directly involved in the commission of the alleged offence. He submitted that he had paid rental amounts for two months, evidenced by a receipt, and that the primary agreement was between the complainant and Brijkishore Das. Therefore, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail. Revenue/State's Argument: The State and the objector opposed the bail application. The objector argued that the applicant was a partner in the firm that took the mixer on rent and, along with Brijkishore Das and Trishit Sen, was liable for the unpaid rent, justifying the FIR.