Sheshmani Mishra @ Surya Kant Mishra vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. The Court noted that the dispute appeared to be civil in nature. It considered that initially, the police found the offence non-cognizable and advised the parties to approach the court. The Court also took into account the complainant's affidavit admitting the purchase of goods worth Rs. 2,75,000 from the applicant, payment of Rs. 1,95,000, and an undertaking to pay the remaining Rs. 80,000. The lack of objection from the complainant's counsel and the absence of apprehension of the applicant absconding or tampering with witnesses were also factors. The Court directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, subject to several conditions including availability for interrogation, not influencing witnesses, and appearing before the trial court. The Court explicitly stated it was not commenting on the merits of the case.

Facts

The applicant, Sheshmani Mishra, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case registered for offences including cheating and forgery. The prosecution alleges that the applicant, proprietor of S.S. Computer, took Rs. 1,95,000 from the complainant, Raju Kewat, for the supply of computers and other items, and an additional Rs. 37,000 for GST, transportation, and miscellaneous expenses. However, the applicant allegedly failed to supply the goods. The complainant initially lodged a report on December 18, 2019, but no action was taken. Subsequently, on the complainant's application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., an FIR was registered on January 23, 2022. The applicant claims to have supplied the goods and that the dispute is civil in nature, arising from the complainant's failure to pay the balance amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of cheating and forgery, and the procedural history of the case? The applicant argued that he is innocent and falsely implicated. He contended that he supplied goods worth Rs. 2,08,900, including tax, and received Rs. 1,95,000. He further argued that the complainant did not pay the balance amount and that the applicant himself had lodged a complaint against the complainant. The applicant also highlighted that the initial police report found the offence to be non-cognizable and advised recourse to the court. He emphasized his reputed family background, lack of criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial. The State opposed the bail application. The complainant's counsel had no objection to the grant of bail.