Tikendra Sisodia vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. While acknowledging the serious allegations of fraud and deception, the Court considered the submissions made by the applicant's counsel, including the payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- via NEFT/IMPS, the nature of the cheques as potentially being for security, and the contents of the lease agreement. The Court also took note of the fact that the co-accused, Anita Sisodia, had already been granted bail. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, with conditions as per Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Facts

The applicant, Tikendra Sisodia, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case registered under Section 420 of the IPC. The prosecution alleges that the applicant and his wife, co-accused Anita Sisodia, entered into a lease agreement to run the complainant's hotel, 'Adityaz', under the name 'Tuma Park Adityaz'. They allegedly provided cheques totaling Rs. 35,00,000/- as part of the agreement. These cheques, however, were dishonored due to "drawers signature differ". The prosecution further claims that the applicant and his wife used the complainant's hotel's electricity, GST number, bill receipts, and money receipt slips with the intent to deceive, thereby committing fraud. The applicant contends that the dispute is civil in nature, that Rs. 15,00,000/- was paid via NEFT/IMPS, and that the cheques were for security. He also points out that his co-accused has been granted bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations against the applicant constitute an offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, warranting denial of anticipatory bail? 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail on the grounds of parity with his co-accused, Anita Sisodia, who has already been granted bail? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the dispute between him and the complainant is purely civil in nature and that the ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC are not made out. He asserted that all allegations are false and fabricated, intended to pressurize him. He also highlighted that an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was paid through NEFT/IMPS and that the cheques were given as security. Furthermore, he submitted that his co-accused, Anita Sisodia, has already been enlarged on bail, and therefore, he should be granted anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondent/State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, arguing that the applicant deliberately stopped payment of the cheques and then used the complainant's hotel's electricity, GST number, bill receipts, and money receipt slips with the intent to deceive. They contended that the allegations are serious and thus the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail.