Smt. Roshani Bansal vs. The State Of M.P.

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. While acknowledging the allegations and the prosecution's case, the Court found that the material placed on record did not disclose the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court was of the opinion that the applicant deserved the benefit of anticipatory bail. The applicant was directed to be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The order also stipulated several conditions for the bail, including cooperation in the investigation/trial, not inducing or threatening witnesses, not seeking unnecessary adjournments, and not leaving India without prior permission. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case.

Facts

This is an application under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. (Cr.P.C.) filed by Smt. Roshani Bansal, apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 659 of 2025, registered at Police Station Cantt, District Guna, for offences under Sections 316(2) and 316(5) of the BNS, 2023. The prosecution alleges a breach of business trust between the complainant's firm, Shri Maa Enterprises, and the applicant's firm, Shri Shyam Traders. Goods worth Rs. 1,70,60,019/- were shipped by the complainant, and Rs. 1,14,75,000/- was paid by the accused, leaving a balance of Rs. 55,85,019/-. The applicant claims to have been falsely implicated, asserting that all bills raised by the complainant were duly paid, and that an excess amount was paid. The applicant also contends that no goods were received for certain bills and that the complainant failed to generate E-way bills as per GST norms, suggesting the dispute is civil in nature.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations leveled by the complainant constitute a criminal offence of breach of business trust, or if they represent a purely civil dispute arising from business transactions, thereby warranting anticipatory bail for the applicant? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the allegations are purely civil in nature, arising from a business transaction, and do not constitute a criminal offence. The firm Shri Shyam Traders is a proprietorship of the applicant, and the transactions between the firms show that all bills raised by the complainant were duly paid, with an excess payment made by the applicant. The applicant further contended that no goods were received for certain bills, and the complainant failed to generate E-way bills as per GST norms, indicating an attempt to give criminal cover to a civil dispute. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Jeetendra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & another, emphasizing that "bail is rule and jail is exception." Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel for the complainant opposed the application, arguing that based on the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the offence, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.