Gianeshwar Sood And Another vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court held that the Investigating Officer had collected sufficient evidence to establish a case against the applicants under Sections 409 and 420 IPC, warranting a trial. The Court found that the applicants did not demand money for interior designing work prior to the FIR, and the civil suit was instituted only after the FIR was lodged. The Court noted that the making, delivery, and offering of the 'chattar' at Badrinath Dham by the applicants were not disputed, and the applicants had not provided evidence of payment for the 'chattar'. Consequently, the Court concluded that the applicants were not entitled to further anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application was rejected.

Facts

The applicants, Gianeshwar Sood and Yogeshwar Sood, are seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 409 and 420 IPC. The FIR alleges that the informant commissioned the applicants to create a gold 'chattar' fitted with diamonds, costing Rs. 1,31,36,289/-. The applicants allegedly received the 'chattar' on 06.04.2018, assured payment within a week, but failed to pay, leading to the FIR. The applicants claim they are directors of Mukat Arts Pvt. Ltd., involved in interior decoration, and the informant had commissioned work worth Rs. 9.5 crores, making a part payment of Rs. 1.2 crores. They allege the informant concocted the 'chattar' story to avoid paying for the interior work, and they have filed a civil suit for recovery. The applicants were previously granted anticipatory bail, but their subsequent application before the Sessions Court was rejected. A charge sheet has been filed against them.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 409 and 420 IPC, and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer? Arguments for the applicants: The applicants contended that they are directors of a company engaged in interior decoration and that the informant owes them a substantial amount for services rendered. They claim the 'chattar' story is a fabrication to avoid payment and that they have filed a civil suit for recovery. They also highlighted that an initial final report in their favour was submitted. They relied on the fact that a civil suit was filed by them prior to the FIR. Arguments for the State/Informant: The informant and State argued that there is documentary evidence, including invoices and bills, proving the making of the 'chattar', and its offering at Badrinath Temple has been certified. They also mentioned voice recordings of the applicants admitting receipt of the 'chattar' and that GST for the sale has been deposited. They contended that the civil suit was a counter-blast to the FIR and that the applicants are not entitled to anticipatory bail as a charge sheet has been filed.