Anil Rai vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court considered the submissions, the nature of the allegations, and the undertaking given by the applicants. The applicants expressed their willingness to return the amount of Rs. 3,35,08,958.91/- within four months, or to supply scrap material of that value if the complainant was interested. The complainant's counsel, on instructions, stated they were not interested in receiving further supply of scrap materials. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court decided to grant bail to both applicants. The reasoning for granting bail appears to be the applicants' willingness to make good the financial loss and the fact that the dispute might have civil aspects, despite the criminal charges. The Court imposed several stringent conditions for the bail, including executing personal bonds, appearing in court, jointly and severally returning the specified amount within four months (with a portion to be deposited within 60 days of release), furnishing details of movable and immovable properties, not alienating property without court permission, and allowing for bank account unfreezing for payment. Failure to comply with any condition would automatically cancel the bail order. The issue of whether the matter was purely a civil dispute or involved criminal intent was not expressly decided, but the bail was granted based on the financial undertaking.

Facts

These two applications, MCRC No. 3121 of 2022 and MCRC No. 3453 of 2022, were filed by Gurjeet Singh and Anil Rai respectively, seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 43/2022 registered at Police Station Amanaka, District Raipur, for offences under Sections 420, 409, and 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case, initiated by the complainant Vijay Kumar Jha, Director of Nirav Metals Pvt. Ltd., alleges that Anil Rai, a director of Orbit Electromech India Pvt. Ltd., failed to supply scrap material as per an agreement. Gurjeet Singh, a transporter, allegedly connived with Anil Rai to send fake WhatsApp messages about the delivery of goods, leading to a loss of approximately Rs. 8 crores. The applicants have been in custody since February 7, 2022, and February 12, 2022.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 43/2022 registered for offences under Sections 420, 409, 34 of the IPC, considering the allegations of cheating and breach of contract? The applicants argued that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. They referred to the complainant's company ledger, authenticated by a Chartered Accountant, which reportedly showed an advance of Rs. 24,87,03,283.72/- received by Anil Rai. They claimed regular supplies were made from December 25, 2021, to February 5, 2022, with a remaining balance of Rs. 3,35,08,958.91/- due from the complainant. The applicants expressed readiness to return this amount within four months or supply scrap material of equivalent value. They also contended that the delay was due to the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown and that similar matters with other traders had been settled. They characterized the dispute as purely civil and a breach of contract, alleging the complaint was filed by a rival with ulterior motives. The applicants also stated that Rs. 15,65,72,367.8/- was due towards the complainant. The State and the Objector strongly opposed the bail applications. They alleged that Anil Rai is a habitual offender and falsely claimed to be an authorized vendor of Steel Authority of India Limited. They further submitted that forged lorry receipts were issued, and e-way bills and other documents were manipulated on the GST portal. The Objector claimed a balance of goods worth Rs. 8,13,12,184.25/- was due. They also mentioned that another accused, Sunil Rai, a director, is absconding and that Anil Rai has cheated many persons using the same modus operandi.