Bunty Sahu vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that, prima facie, the complaint pertained to a commercial transaction, indicating that the dispute was purely civil in nature. Considering the factual situation and the nature of the allegations, the Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The reasoning was that the core of the complaint revolved around a business deal where goods were allegedly not supplied as promised or money not returned, which, on the face of it, appeared to be a civil dispute rather than a criminal act of cheating. The ratio decidendi is that disputes arising from commercial transactions, even if involving non-performance or financial disagreements, should generally be treated as civil matters unless there is clear evidence of fraudulent intent from the outset. The application for anticipatory bail was allowed, directing the release of the applicant on bail upon arrest, subject to furnishing a personal bond and surety, and adhering to specified conditions for cooperation with the investigation and trial.

Facts

The petitioner, Bunty Sahu, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 328/2018, registered for offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, based on a report by Gaurav Agrawal, alleged that the petitioner, who runs an auto shop named Ravan Auto, received Rs. 90,000/- for the purchase of auto parts. The complainant alleged that the petitioner promised to supply goods at a lower price due to prevailing GST rates, but neither supplied the goods nor returned the money. The petitioner contended that the transaction was commercial, goods were supplied, and the dispute was civil in nature, not criminal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations of non-supply of goods and non-return of money in a commercial transaction, allegedly influenced by GST rates, constitute an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, warranting anticipatory bail? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the transaction was purely commercial, and the dispute was civil in nature. They contended that the goods were supplied and that any issues arising from the pricing due to GST did not amount to criminal intent. Revenue/State's arguments: The State counsel opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.