Gautam Rai Rally vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the allegations against the applicant are serious, involving cheating, criminal breach of trust, financial fraud, and criminal conspiracy, which have far-reaching consequences. The complainant's account statement, supported by vouchers, clearly reflected payments made to the applicant and co-accused concerning the M/s Bharat School and Supplier loan account. The investigation is ongoing, and custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary to ascertain the flow of funds, source of offences, and recovery of evidence. The case cannot be dismissed as purely civil. The Court noted the prior conduct of the applicant and allegations of involvement in other financial irregularities, which militate against granting anticipatory bail. Citing the Supreme Court judgments in *Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda* and *Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.*, the Court reiterated that anticipatory bail in serious economic offences should not be granted routinely, and undertakings to deposit money cannot substitute for custodial interrogation or proper investigation. The dismissal of a co-accused's similar bail application was also considered. Consequently, the Court found no exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS and dismissed the application.

Facts

The petitioner, Gautam Rai Rally, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, defrauded the complainant by demanding ₹50 lakhs for releasing a mortgaged property of their firm, M/s Bharat School and Supplier. The complainant paid ₹50 lakhs based on assurances, but later discovered the property was not mortgaged as claimed and the money was not deposited with the bank. The petitioner allegedly threatened the complainant when confronted. The petitioner, however, claimed the complainant had previously entered into property transactions with him and his family, and that the payments were part of those transactions, with cheques issued by the complainant being dishonoured. The petitioner argued the complaint was false and motivated by personal rivalry, and that the complainant delayed filing the complaint. The investigation was ongoing, and the petitioner and co-accused were absconding.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, financial fraud, and criminal conspiracy against the applicant warrant the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Adhiniyam, 2023? Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant has been falsely and maliciously implicated due to personal rivalry. - The complainant concocted a false story and delayed filing the complaint without explanation. - Payments made by the complainant were part of prior property transactions, and cheques issued by the complainant were dishonoured. - The applicant had advanced significant amounts to the complainant and his firms, which remain unpaid. - The applicant relied on his own detailed reply and notices issued during the investigation. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The allegations are serious, involving cheating, criminal breach of trust, financial fraud, and criminal conspiracy. - The applicant and co-accused have a history of inducing persons into financial transactions and cheating them, with complaints in multiple states. - The dishonoured cheque of ₹80 lakhs was wrongly used by the applicant to lodge a private complaint under Section 138 NI Act. - Anticipatory bail in cases of serious financial fraud cannot be granted as a matter of course, citing *Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda*. - Bail applications must be decided on merits, not on undertakings to make good pecuniary losses, citing *Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.*. - The anticipatory bail application of a co-accused with similar arguments was dismissed.