Anita Sisodia vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. While acknowledging the serious allegations made by the State regarding the applicant's alleged fraudulent use of the complainant's hotel's electricity, GST number, and receipts, the Court also considered the applicant's submissions. The Court noted that an agreement was entered into for a four-year lease of the hotel, and that in addition to the disputed cheques, other cheques were issued, and an amount of Rs. 15.00 lacs was transferred via NEFT/IMPS. The Court, after perusing the record, considering the submissions of both parties, and reviewing the agreement dated August 2, 2018, along with other facts and circumstances, decided to grant anticipatory bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Facts

The applicant, Anita Sisodia, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and her husband, operating a firm M/s Tooma Hospitality India Private Limited, entered into a lease agreement with the complainant to run his hotel, 'Adityaz', as 'Tuma Park Adityaz' for four years. At the time of the agreement, they issued cheques totaling Rs. 35 lakhs, which were dishonored due to differing signatures. The applicant and her husband allegedly used the complainant's hotel's electricity, GST number, and receipts to deceive him, constituting fraud. The applicant contended that the dispute was civil, an advance payment of Rs. 15 lakhs was made via NEFT/IMPS, and the cheques were security. She argued that the complainant failed to fulfill contractual obligations, leading to stopped cheque payments, and that the allegations were false and fabricated to pressure her.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against the applicant, considering the nature of the dispute and the payments made, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, given the alleged fraudulent use of electricity, GST number, and receipts by the applicant and her husband, as contended by the respondent State. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature, not criminal. She asserted that an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was paid via NEFT/IMPS on August 1, 2018, and the cheques were given as security. She claimed the complainant failed to meet his obligations as per Clause 28 of the agreement, justifying the stoppage of cheque payments. The applicant maintained that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC were not met and that the allegations were false and fabricated to exert pressure. Custodial interrogation or trial was deemed unnecessary. Respondent State's Arguments: The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the applicant deliberately stopped payment of cheques and then used the complainant's hotel's electricity, GST number, bill receipt, and money receipt slip with the intent to deceive him, thereby committing fraud. The State considered the allegations serious and thus argued that the applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail.