Imran vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court found merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. It was held that the applicant was entitled to be enlarged on bail. The Court noted that the dispute appeared to be commercial in nature, arising from a business relationship that had deteriorated, leading to the informant being fined by GST authorities. The Court was persuaded by the argument that the criminal case might be a tool to recover a disputed commercial claim. Crucially, the State did not contest the applicant's assertion of having no prior criminal history. Consequently, without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application was allowed, and the applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond and sureties, subject to certain conditions aimed at ensuring his appearance in court and preventing tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Facts

The applicant, Imran, sought bail in Case Crime No. 669 of 2021, registered under Sections 420, 406, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Gulaothi, District Bulandshahar. The applicant had been in jail since January 10, 2022, and his bail application was previously rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. The dispute arose from a business partnership between the applicant and the informant, which soured due to unachieved sales targets. The informant was reportedly fined by GST authorities, and the applicant's counsel argued that the criminal case was being used to leverage a commercial money claim. The applicant claimed no prior criminal history.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 669 of 2021, considering the nature of the dispute and the applicant's submissions regarding a business relationship gone awry and alleged misuse of criminal proceedings for a commercial claim. Contentions: Petitioner (Applicant): The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated and that the dispute was purely commercial in nature, stemming from a failed business partnership. He argued that the informant was fined by GST authorities and that the criminal case was being leveraged to recover a disputed money claim. The applicant also asserted he had no criminal history apart from the present case. Revenue/State (Opposite Party): The learned AGA for the State and the counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the applicant's submissions from the record. The learned AGA did not contest the applicant's claim of having no prior criminal history.