Amrit Pal And Anr. vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The Court reasoned that the facts narrated did not justify custodial interrogation. The Court noted that there were continuous transactions between the complainant and the applicants, and importantly, that the applicants had lodged a complaint against the complainant prior to the FIR. The Court also considered the notice issued by the applicants regarding the quality of goods. The interim protection granted earlier was confirmed. The ratio decidendi is that in cases involving prior complaints by the accused and a history of commercial transactions, custodial interrogation may not be necessary for offences under Sections 420 and 409 IPC, especially when the accused are willing to cooperate with the investigation. The applicants were released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with sureties and were directed to attend the investigating officer as and when called until the filing of the charge-sheet. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

This case involves an anticipatory bail application filed by Amrit Pal and Manish Pal (applicants) in connection with FIR No. 98 of 2021, registered on February 15, 2021, at Bandra Police Station, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 420, 409 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that in March 2018, the applicants intended to purchase wood worth approximately Rs. 10 lakh. Following discussions and inspection, wood transactions occurred in 2018 between the complainant's company and M/s. Agarwal Timber and Plywood, owned by the applicants. Deliveries were made on September 14, 18, and October 2, 2018. The complainant claimed to have received Rs. 44.50 lakh towards GST and Rs. 10.25 lakh in cash, with a balance receivable of Rs. 75,14,475/-. Further transactions in October 2018 allegedly resulted in a threat to the complainant. Prior to the FIR, the applicants had lodged a complaint against the complainant with EOW, Panchkula, and issued a notice regarding inferior quality goods. The applicants were granted interim protection on April 6, 2021, and appeared before the investigating officer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the facts and circumstances of the case justify custodial interrogation of the applicants, considering the nature of the alleged offences under Sections 420 and 409 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the prior complaints filed by the applicants against the complainant? Contentions of the Applicants: The applicants argued that there were continuous transactions between them and the complainant, and that they had lodged a complaint against the complainant prior to the FIR. They also pointed to a notice issued on December 26, 2018, alleging inferior quality of goods supplied. They expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Contentions of the Respondent (State): The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the complainant was cheated, causing a huge loss, and that the objection about the quality of goods was not raised by the applicants. They relied on the statements of two witnesses recorded during the investigation, which they claimed corroborated the complainant's version.