Smt. Yasmin Fatima Shafikur Rahman vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that although the amount involved was substantial, the transaction appeared to be civil in nature, concerning the non-payment of the price of goods supplied. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the complainant's statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., which suggested a dispute over payment rather than an outright fraudulent scheme. The ratio decidendi is that a dispute over payment for goods, even if substantial, may be treated as a civil transaction, making anticipatory bail appropriate. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety and comply with conditions including availability for interrogation, not inducing or threatening witnesses, and not influencing witnesses during the trial.

Facts

The applicant, Smt. Yasmin Fatima Shafikur Rahman, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 89/2020 registered at Police Station Jamul, District Durg, for offences under Sections 420, 409, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and co-accused purchased chemical products through GST invoices between April 12, 2018, and September 20, 2018, but failed to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,17,23,317/-. Cheques issued for payment were subsequently dishonored due to stop payment instructions. The complainant stated that goods worth Rs. 3,13,37,723/- were supplied, with Rs. 1,96,14,406/- paid, leaving a balance of Rs. 1,17,23,317/-. The applicant apprehended arrest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust related to non-payment for goods supplied under GST invoices? The applicant argued that the transaction appeared to be civil in nature, pertaining to the non-payment of the price of goods, and therefore, anticipatory bail should be granted. The State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, highlighting the significant amount involved. The court considered the complainant's statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and the nature of the transaction.