Pankajkumar Ramniwas Agrawal vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court found that a prima facie case was made out against the applicant. The investigation revealed that the alleged proprietor of Kashish Enterprise was merely an employee and not the actual proprietor. Witness statements indicated that the applicant received goods directly from the complainant and obtained signatures on delivery challans, and that the applicant obtained goods in the name of co-accused. The Court noted that the applicant's own admission of transferring money to various businessmen, including Rishabh Enterprise and Kashish Enterprise, to earn interest, and from his family members' accounts, necessitated custodial interrogation to ascertain the true purpose of these transactions. The Court also considered that similar complaints had been filed against the applicant for offences under Sections 406 and 402 of the IPC, and that he had settled disputes in some cases and faced proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant, deeming custodial interrogation essential for further investigation and collection of documentary evidence.

Facts

The applicant, Pankajkumar Ramniwas Agrawal, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. I-110/2018 registered at Kalupur Police Station for offences under Sections 406, 420, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleged that the applicant and co-accused defrauded the complainant of goods worth Rs. 9,52,08,402/-, by failing to make payment. The applicant, a broker in the cloth industry, argued that the dispute was civil in nature, that the complainant had initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoured cheques, and that the complainant's stance had been inconsistent. The applicant also pointed to the existence of genuine business entities like Rishabh Enterprise and Kashish Enterprise, and that another broker involved in a similar transaction had been granted anticipatory bail. The prosecution contended that the applicant misused GST numbers of other co-accused, deposited cash into the accounts of co-accused before cheques were issued, and that custodial interrogation was necessary.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a criminal offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust, or if the dispute is purely civil in nature, particularly in light of the transactions being sale transactions and the initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (turning on Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code)? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the dispute was civil, as the complainant had sold goods and the non-payment could be addressed through civil proceedings. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in *State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal* (AIR 1968 SC 700) to argue that no criminal breach of trust could be made out in a sale transaction. The applicant also contended that the complainant's inconsistent statements and the initiation of Section 138 proceedings indicated a lack of criminal intent. They cited *Arneshkumar v. State of Bihar* ((2014) 8 SCC 273) for the court to exercise discretion in granting bail. Revenue's Arguments: The State contended that the applicant misused GST numbers, deposited cash into co-accused accounts before cheques were issued, and that custodial interrogation was necessary for detailed investigation into the manner and method of transactions. They argued that the applicant's family members transferred significant amounts to co-accused accounts, and that the applicant had previous criminal antecedents and had settled disputes in similar cases.