Ravish Bhadana And Another vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court rejected the anticipatory bail application. The Court noted that the FIR alleged fraud and cheating, with the informant investing Rs. 42 lacs based on promises of partnership and huge profits from doormat export. The applicants' defense was that the money was for a sale contract of doormats, supported by GST returns and invoices. However, the Court found that the GST returns relied upon by the applicants were not truthful, as evidenced by the RTI reply from the GST Department, Meerut. This reply indicated significantly lower sales (Rs. 6,25,700/-) compared to the invoices filed by the applicants (Rs. 3,33,99,140/-). The Court also noted that the informant had provided evidence of the applicants giving wrong addresses and not being found at those locations, suggesting they were absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. Given these circumstances, the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants and thus rejected their anticipatory bail application. The applicants were advised to move a regular bail application before the trial court, which was directed to dispose of it expeditiously.

Facts

This case concerns an anticipatory bail application filed by Ravish Bhadana and Neha Sharma (applicants) in connection with FIR No. 571 of 2021, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 506, and 120-B IPC. The informant, Ankit Agrawal, alleged that he was induced by the applicants and Adnan Khan to invest a total of Rs. 42 lacs in their doormat manufacturing and export business, with a promise of partnership. The informant later discovered that he had been defrauded, as his signatures were not on any bank transactions, and the applicants evaded showing company accounts. The applicants, however, claimed the money was advance payment for goods supplied under a sale contract, and that the informant was a buyer, not a partner. They presented GST returns and invoices to support their claim. The informant countered by stating that the GST invoices filed by the applicants were forged, citing a reply from the GST Department under RTI showing significantly lower domestic sales. The informant also alleged that the applicants provided false addresses and were absconding.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of fraud and cheating, and the conflicting claims of a partnership investment versus a commercial sale agreement (Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC). Petitioner's arguments: The applicants argued they were falsely implicated, that the partnership deed story was false, and that the money received was advance payment for goods supplied under a sale contract. They relied on invoices and GST returns to show actual supply of goods and that the dispute was civil/commercial. They also argued that their arrest would harm their reputation and that they were ready to cooperate with the investigation. Revenue/State's arguments: The informant (complainant) and the State argued that the applicants had defrauded the informant of Rs. 42 lacs. They contended that the GST invoices filed by the applicants were forged, citing an RTI reply from the GST Department showing significantly lower sales than claimed by the applicants. They also argued that no contract of sale was executed and that the applicants had provided false addresses, indicating they were absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. They referred to a previous dismissed writ petition by the applicants with contradictory pleadings.