Mohammad Saieed Sheikh vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that no case for cancellation of bail was made out. The Court reasoned that the primary purpose of the application appeared to be the recovery of an amount from the non-applicant, which is not the role of the High Court when considering bail cancellation. The Court cited Apex Court judgments in Dolat Ram & Others v/s State of Haryana, Dilip Singh v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another, and M.D. Dhanapal v/s State Represented by the Inspector of the Police, which state that the High Court should not act as a recovery agent for the complainant. The Court noted that the applicant had already received Rs. 1,03,89,506/- out of the alleged Rs. 1,05,00,000/- loss. Furthermore, there were no allegations that the non-applicant had misused his bail liberty, influenced witnesses, tampered with evidence, or failed to participate in the trial. The Court also observed that another accused, Vijay Khurana, who also acted as an agent, was granted anticipatory bail without any deposit, and the applicant had not sought cancellation of his bail. Therefore, the application for cancellation of bail was dismissed.

Facts

The applicant, Mohammad Saied Sheikh, filed an application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to non-applicant No.2, Premchand Gupta. The applicant alleged that Premchand Gupta and others conspired to cause a loss of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- through cheating and forgery. The applicant, who was authorized to buy scrap from V.E. Industries, had authorized Premchand Gupta to use his account for purchasing scrap for Rs. 1,05,00,000/-. However, Premchand Gupta allegedly sold the scrap to another firm and transferred the sale proceeds to his own firm instead of the applicant's firm, Royal Traders. Premchand Gupta was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on February 10, 2021. Subsequently, the applicant alleged that Premchand Gupta obtained bail without depositing Rs. 9,19,846/-. The non-applicant contended that the complainant had already received Rs. 1,03,89,506/- and that the difference in GST returns was only Rs. 16,50,223/-, not Rs. 1,05,00,000/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the anticipatory bail granted to non-applicant No.2, Premchand Gupta, under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. should be cancelled on the grounds of alleged non-deposit of a specific amount and potential recovery of dues, as argued by the applicant. The applicant contended that bail should be cancelled or Premchand Gupta should be directed to deposit Rs. 9,19,846/-. The applicant relied on the fact that other co-accused were granted bail subject to deposit of certain amounts. 2. Whether the High Court should act as a recovery agent for the complainant, as argued by the non-applicant. The non-applicant argued that the primary purpose of the application was to recover the amount and that the High Court should not entertain such applications, citing Apex Court judgments. The non-applicant also pointed out that the complainant had already received a substantial portion of the alleged loss.