Sunny Jain vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail. The primary issue was whether the applicant had committed an offence of cheating. The Court considered the allegations that the applicant obtained a significant payment of over Rs. 56,00,000/- and made absolutely no supplies. The material placed before the Court by the State indicated that during the investigation, invoices and transport details were found to be forged documents. Additionally, the applicant had not presented any material to demonstrate that he, as a trader, had been receiving large quantities of cement from manufacturers or suppliers to then supply to the complainant. Given these findings, the Court concluded that it was not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The applicant was granted liberty to apply for regular bail, with a direction that his application be decided at the earliest, considering his mother's ill health and his small children.

Facts

The applicant, Sunny Jain, proprietor of Sunny Borewales, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with a criminal case registered for alleged offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the applicant received a payment of Rs. 56,12,000/- from the complainant on the assurance of supplying 1700 tonnes of cement but failed to make any supply, thereby intending to cheat. The applicant contended that the dispute was regarding the quantity and quality of cement supplied, and that he had made supplies supported by invoices and GST receipts. He also pointed to a previous complaint lodged by the complainant in another police station, which did not result in a criminal case registration. The State and objector argued that the applicant had no intention to supply cement, that the payments were made via RTGS, and that the invoices and transport details were forged, with vehicles not found to exist as per RTO reports.

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 the evidence presented by both parties. Petitioner's arguments: The applicant argued that the matter was a civil dispute concerning the quantity and quality of cement supplied, and that the allegation of no supply was made to harass him. He relied on invoices and GST receipts as prima facie evidence of supply. Furthermore, he contended that a previous complaint by the complainant in another police station, which led to proceedings under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. without registration of an FIR, indicated that the current proceedings were not maintainable, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Tilak Nagar Industries Ltd. and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another. Revenue/State's arguments: The State and objector argued that the applicant intended to cheat, having received a substantial payment without any intention to supply cement. They asserted that the invoices and transport details were forged, and the vehicles mentioned were non-existent according to RTO reports, suggesting the applicant had no legitimate means to procure and supply such a large quantity of cement.