Saiyad Faiz Hasan vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court rejected the anticipatory bail application. The Court found that the applicant, as the proprietor of Ansari Trading Enterprises, received Rs. 17,64,000/- from the complainant for the purchase of gloves, but the goods were not delivered, nor was the amount returned. The investigation revealed that documents provided by the applicant, including those from Mahavir Rail Cargo and E-way bills, were fabricated. The inquiry with transporters confirmed no such goods were transported. The Court noted that the applicant was not found at his business or residential addresses, indicating he was evading investigation. The Court also considered the allegation that the applicant avoided paying GST and forwarded a credit note to the GST Division. While the applicant claimed to have paid a substantial amount to M/s. Sabri Enterprises and offered a partial payment, the Court found the entire transaction suspicious and that the applicant had not made out a case for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The complainant ordered 5000 boxes of Nitrile Gloves from M/s. Ansari Trading Enterprise, operated by the applicant, Saiyad Faiz Hasan. The complainant paid Rs. 17,64,000/- based on invoices, E-way bills, and an LR copy provided by the applicant. The goods were not delivered, and the applicant allegedly neglected calls. The applicant claims he acted as an intermediary, transferring Rs. 16,85,600/- to M/s. Sabri Enterprises, run by Mr. Shoeb Khan and Mr. Atif. The applicant alleges that Shoeb Khan provided fabricated documents and that he himself is a victim. The applicant's anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court. The complainant, through an intervenor, alleged the applicant fabricated documents, including a cargo receipt, and did not remit GST. The applicant also allegedly sent an email instructing the complainant not to deposit a cheque issued for Rs. 20,14,000/-, and the complainant's father received a threat call.

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 (Section 420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC)? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant argued that he acted as an intermediary and transferred the majority of the received amount to M/s. Sabri Enterprises. He contended that he himself is a victim of Shoeb Khan and Atif, who provided fabricated documents. The applicant claimed his custodial interrogation was unnecessary and that he intended to cooperate with the investigation. He also offered to make a partial payment. Respondent's (State) arguments: The State argued that the complainant was induced to part with a significant sum for goods that were never delivered, and false representations were made using fabricated documents. The applicant's claim of being a victim was disputed, and the investigation revealed fabricated bills and transport documents. Intervenor's (Complainant) arguments: The intervenor asserted that the applicant was the sole proprietor of Ansari Trading Enterprises, induced the complainant to pay Rs. 17,64,000/-, and fabricated cargo receipts. The intervenor also alleged the applicant acquired the entire payment, including GST, but refrained from remitting it. The applicant allegedly issued a cheque with a blank date to evade repayment and sent an email to prevent its deposit. Threat calls were also allegedly received.