Ankit Jain vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court granted the applicant regular bail. The decision was based on the factual aspects of the case and the nature of the alleged offences. The Court also took into consideration the fact that the trial is likely to take time to conclude. While not commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail. The applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. He is also required to comply with the provisions of Section 480(3) of BNSS and appear before the trial court on all dates fixed during the pendency of the trial. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

This case involves an application for regular bail filed by Ankit Jain (the applicant) under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant was arrested in connection with FIR/Crime No. 370/2026, registered at Police Station-Motinagar, District-Sagar, for offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), and 340(2) of the BNS. The applicant, a retail tyre seller, claims to have been falsely implicated due to business rivalry and states he has not issued any bills. He has been in custody since April 5, 2026. The State opposed the bail application, alleging the applicant used the complainant's firm name and GST details to sell tyres at inflated prices, thereby damaging their financial standing and goodwill.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the alleged offences and the fact that he is in custody. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contends that he has been falsely implicated due to business rivalry and that the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. He argues that his enlargement on bail is necessary given these circumstances. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposes the bail application, asserting that the applicant misused the complainant's firm name and GST details to sell tyres at higher prices. This, according to the State, caused financial and goodwill damage to the complainant, making the applicant ineligible for bail.