Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy Pradesh

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application. The reasoning was based on the fact that at the time the alleged amount was received, the GST registration of the concerned entity was suspended, and they were not in a position to supply the stock. Therefore, the Court found no grounds for indulgence and dismissed the application. The operative direction was the dismissal of the bail application, with the applicant remaining in custody. No specific issues were expressly left undecided, as the court directly addressed the grounds for bail in light of the prosecution's case and the applicant's submissions.

Facts

The applicant, Ashutosh, sought bail in connection with a criminal case registered for offences under sections 316(2), 316(5), and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with M.K. Traders' proprietor Vivek Kumar, was involved in a business transaction concerning Rajnigandha Pan Masala. A purchase order was sent to the applicant's WhatsApp number, and he allegedly assured dispatch of goods upon advance payment. The complainant's firm, R.S. Enterprises, made an advance payment of ₹1,60,33,800/- directly into the bank account of M.K. Traders. The applicant contended that no funds were received directly by him and that he had been in custody since August 16, 2024. The State and complainant opposed the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given that the alleged transaction amount was received directly into the bank account of M.K. Traders and not the applicant's personal or business account, and the applicant has been in custody since August 16, 2024? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the entire transaction amount was deposited directly into the bank account of M.K. Traders, and no funds were received by or transferred into any personal or business bank account owned by the applicant. He also highlighted his continuous custody since August 16, 2024, and prayed for release on bail during the trial. Revenue/State's Arguments: The counsel for the State and the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and prayed for the rejection of the application.