Mohit Kumar vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court allowed the bail application, granting anticipatory bail to the applicant without commenting on the merits of the case. The Court considered the rival submissions and perused the case diary, particularly noting the FIR which indicated that initial payments were made pursuant to the delivery of goods by the complainant to the applicant. This observation, coupled with the petitioner's argument that the dispute was commercial in nature, inclined the Court to grant relief. The operative directions included releasing the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,50,000/- and a solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The applicant was also directed to cooperate with the investigation and appear as and when directed by the investigating agency or the Trial Court, and abide by other conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohit Kumar, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 1124/2023 registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Dewas, for offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, and 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner and co-accused cheated the complainant of Rs. 1,18,20,236/- by refusing to make payment after gaining trust through business dealings. The petitioner's first bail application was disposed of with directions to comply with Apex Court guidelines. Subsequently, Section 409 IPC was added, increasing the maximum punishment beyond seven years, making the earlier guidelines inapplicable. The petitioner argues the dispute is commercial, with allegations of non-delivery of goods by him, while the complainant claims non-payment. He also claims to have filed an FIR against the complainant, suggesting the current FIR is a counterblast.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, considering the addition of Section 409 IPC and the nature of the dispute being commercial? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that the matter is fundamentally a commercial dispute between transacting parties. He highlights that initial business transactions were conducted with a co-accused, and later with the petitioner, with payments being made. He asserts that disputes arose, leading him to file an FIR (Crime No. 253/2023) against the complainant. The petitioner argues that the current FIR is a counterblast to his complaint. He further states that his case is that he made advance payments but did not receive goods, whereas the complainant claims goods were delivered, and payment was incomplete. Therefore, the dispute is purely commercial, warranting anticipatory bail. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposes the bail application, citing the petitioner's criminal antecedents in five other cases. The complainant's counsel also opposes the prayer, pointing to a similar case registered against the petitioner in Chhatarpur, suggesting a pattern of modus operandi. The complainant's counsel also mentions that a complaint was initially lodged with the GST Department.