Mehfooz Mehmood Khan vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail applications. The primary reason for allowing the applications was the amicable settlement reached between the applicants and the complainant in the presence of the Investigating Officer. The complainant, who was present in court, categorically stated his readiness to accept the settlement amount of Rs. 18,76,697.68, which was arrived at after deducting the GST paid by the applicants. He further stated that he would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR if the installments were paid as assured within the stipulated period. Based on this understanding and the complainant's statement, the Investigating Officer confirmed that custodial interrogation was not necessary. The Court granted bail to the applicants on furnishing a Personal Recognizance bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with sureties, with conditions to report to the police station when called, not to tamper with evidence, and to attend trial regularly.

Facts

The applicants, Rekha Viahwadeep Tiwari and Mehfooz Mehmood Khan, sought anticipatory bail in connection with CR No. 349/2022 registered at Meghwadi Police Station. The dispute involved a sum of Rs. 22 Lakhs, which was due to the complainant. The applicants contended that the complainant cancelled the order after the goods were loaded and documents prepared. The applicants had paid GST amounting to Rs. 3,23,302.32 on the transaction. The complainant, present in court, agreed to accept Rs. 18,76,697.68 after deducting the GST paid by the applicants. The applicants offered to pay this amount in two installments, by September 15, 2022, and October 30, 2022. The complainant stated that upon receiving the installments as assured, he would have no objection to the quashing of the FIR. The Investigating Officer confirmed that custodial interrogation was not necessary.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the settlement reached with the complainant regarding the refund of the disputed amount, including the GST component? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of anticipatory bail and settlement). The applicants argued that a settlement had been reached with the complainant, who agreed to accept a reduced amount after deducting the GST paid by the applicants. They contended that the complainant's no-objection to quashing the FIR, upon receipt of the settlement amount, justified granting anticipatory bail. The State did not appear to have made specific arguments against the bail application, beyond the initial registration of the FIR, as the focus shifted to the settlement.