Anthoniraj vs. The Sub Inspector Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, Anthoniraj, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 212 of 2021, registered by the Sivakasi East Police Station for alleged offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case is that the defacto complainant, an advocate, planned to open a jewellery shop and entered into an agreement with the petitioner, who acted as a broker for gold jewels. The petitioner allegedly demanded Rs. 16,00,000/- as advance and undertook to supply gold jewels worth Rs. 83,00,000/- by April 29, 2021, after paying GST. The defacto complainant deposited Rs. 16,00,000/- in installments. However, she received an invoice for Rs. 1,34,39,000/- without a GST number, raising suspicion. The petitioner returned Rs. 6,00,000/-. The defacto complainant suspected the petitioner of gold smuggling and being an unauthorized seller, leading to the FIR. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated and had previously filed a complaint against the defacto complainant and her step-father.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the FIR alleged the defacto complainant gave Rs. 16,00,000/- to the petitioner for gold jewels, and Rs. 6,00,000/- had already been returned. The FIR also indicated a request for recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the petitioner. The Court considered the petitioner's bonafide offer to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- as stated in his affidavit. Without delving into the merits of the case, the Court found it inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties. Crucially, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- to the credit of the crime before the Judicial Magistrate within two weeks, without prejudice to his rights. The Magistrate was directed to keep this amount in an interest-bearing account and pass appropriate orders regarding its disbursement at the conclusion of the trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No. 212 of 2021 registered for offences under Section 420 of IPC, considering the allegations of cheating and the pending investigation. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He argued that the defacto complainant and her step-father are influential advocates and that the defacto complainant received gold jewels worth Rs. 52,00,000/- and Rs. 6,00,000/- but failed to pay. He further submitted that the current complaint was lodged to escape his prior complaint filed on May 8, 2021. To demonstrate his bonafide, the petitioner expressed willingness to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/-. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent police opposed the petition on the ground that the investigation is pending. The intervener opposed the petition, stating the petitioner had cheated her.