Roopal W/O Chetanbhai Mavani Through Mr. Dignesh Lakhani vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail. The prosecution case, as per the case diary, indicates that the applicant entered into a contract for supplying goods and received Rs. 99,00,000/- but failed to supply the goods or return the money. The Court noted that the applicant allegedly created forged documents, including bank transactions, transport bills, and GST bills. The WhatsApp chat statements of the applicant were also considered as evidence of her intention. Given the nature of the offence, the significant amount of money involved in the alleged cheating, and the evidence of forged documents, the Court concluded that the applicant does not make out a case for grant of bail. The Court relied on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee regarding the factors to be considered while granting bail, emphasizing the need for judicious exercise of discretion and consideration of prima facie grounds, nature and gravity of the accusation, and danger of justice being thwarted. The Court also referred to Naveen Kaamra vs. State of M.P. where a similar observation was made regarding cases involving huge amounts and forged documents. The Court found that the crime could be registered in Indore jurisdiction as the complainant resides there and forged documents were sent to Indore. Therefore, the bail application was dismissed.

Facts

This is a bail application filed by the applicant, Roopal, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant is accused of offences under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, and 470 of the IPC. The prosecution alleges that the complainant company, Sky High Trade Links Pvt. Ltd., placed an order for cumin seeds with M/s Mhaske & Sons Trading, represented by Vinay Kumar. The applicant was introduced as a party who assured the complainant that the goods would be sold in the local market. The complainant paid a significant amount, but the goods were allegedly not supplied, and the applicant is accused of producing forged bills and transport documents. The applicant claims to be falsely implicated, denies receiving any amount from the complainant, and asserts no privity of contract. The applicant has been in custody since October 29, 2023. Earlier, the applicant approached the Apex Court, which remanded the matter for fresh hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC, considering the allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and forgery, and the involvement of a huge sum of money? (Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 470 IPC). Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant has been falsely implicated and has no connection with the complainant or the transaction. - The FIR is an abuse of process to illegally extract money. - The goods were purchased and stored in Gujarat, and meetings were held in Gujarat, raising questions about the jurisdiction of the Indore court. - The applicant is a lady with three children and has been in custody since October 29, 2023. - The applicant did not submit or create any forged documents. - The contract was executed between the complainant and M/s Mhaske & Sons Trading, and no allegations are made against its proprietor or representative. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The applicant entered into a contract for supplying goods and received Rs. 99,00,000/- but neither supplied the goods nor returned the money. - The applicant made forged documents, including bank transactions, transport bills, and GST bills. - WhatsApp chat statements of the applicant show her intention. - The crime can be registered in Indore jurisdiction as the complainant resides there and forged documents were sent to Indore. - The applicant was arrested from a remote village in Gujarat, indicating an attempt to evade arrest. - The applicant submitted multiple forged documents, including GST bills and e-way bills, which were disproven by the transport company's owner and driver.