Raman Aggarwal vs. M/S. C.L. Scrap Traders

Held

The Court held that anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, such as where the prosecution is malicious or the applicant has been falsely implicated. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant, Raman Aggarwal. The reasoning appears to be based on the assessment that the case did not fall within the exceptional circumstances warranting anticipatory bail, likely due to the serious allegations of fraud and financial impropriety, and the counter-arguments presented by the complainant. The Court found that the allegations, as presented and argued, did not meet the threshold for granting anticipatory relief. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed. No specific provisions of the GST Act were discussed in relation to the decision on bail, beyond a mention by the petitioner regarding the complainant's non-filing of returns.

Facts

This case involves a first bail application filed by Raman Aggarwal under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail. The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with a private complaint registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 406, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC. The complainant alleges that the applicant and co-accused committed fraud and cheating by taking Rs. 70,00,000/- in cash, pursuant to an agreement to sell scrap. An agreement for sale dated 30/09/2022 was entered into for Rs. 13.21 crores. The complainant paid Rs. 7.75 crores, of which Rs. 1.56 crores were returned, leaving a dispute of Rs. 6.21 crores. The applicant allegedly conspired, committed breach of trust, and forged documents. Cognizance has been taken by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhar.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of fraud, cheating, breach of trust, and forgery in a commercial transaction? Contentions of the Petitioner (Raman Aggarwal): - The applicant is innocent and falsely implicated. - There is insufficient evidence of complicity. - The complainant has not complied with Condition No. 3 of the sale agreement and took away 27 trucks of scrap. - A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed against the complainant for a dishonoured cheque of Rs. 2.5 Crores, and the present complaint is a counter-blast. - The civil dispute has been given a criminal colour. - The complainant has not filed GST returns even after a court order, to suppress facts. - There is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence; the applicant will cooperate with the investigation. Contentions of the Respondent (Complainant): - The complainant has paid Rs. 7.75 Crores, with Rs. 1.56 Crores returned, and the remaining amount is with the applicant. - The complainant did not steal the material and is from Prayagraj, making it impossible to steal 27 trucks of scrap. - The applicant has not filed any report against the complainant for alleged theft. - Granting anticipatory bail would defeat the purpose of the complaint as the applicant has already duped the complainant of a huge amount.