Smt. Manmeet Kaur Sethi vs. Kjs Cement Limited

Held

The High Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the facts and circumstances, including the applicant being a woman aged about 50 years and the fact that the amount in question had already been recovered by the company from the applicant's pending bills. The Court granted anticipatory bail on the following conditions: 1. The applicant will deposit GST, CGST, and other taxes that have already been paid by the company to the government for the cement, if not already recovered by the company or deposited by the applicant. 2. The applicant will regularly appear before the trial court, either personally or through her counsel, and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. The Court directed that in the event of her arrest, she shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or trial court. The applicant was also directed to join the investigation immediately, cooperate with the investigating agency, and abide by the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Facts

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by Smt. Manmeet Kaur Sethi, a woman aged about 50 years and a business proprietor of Nayandeep Enterprises. The applicant is seeking bail in relation to Complaint Case No. RCT/186/2023, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maihar, District-Satna, for an alleged offense under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The applicant contends that no offense under Section 409 IPC is made out as she is not a public servant, banker, merchant, or agent. She argues that the alleged offense would fall under Section 407 IPC, as she is a transporter entrusted with property that was not delivered. The applicant also states that the defalcated amount has been adjusted by KJS Cement Limited against her bills and that she had handed over the cement for transportation to another transporter who committed the offense. She highlights that in a similar case (Complaint Case No. RCT No.188/2022), she was granted anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, a transporter, can be held liable under Section 409 of the IPC for alleged non-delivery of goods, or if the offense, if any, would fall under Section 407 of the IPC? 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail considering her age, gender, the alleged adjustment of the amount by the company, and the fact that another transporter is allegedly responsible for the non-delivery? Contentions of the Applicant: The applicant argued that no offense under Section 409 IPC is made out as she is not a public servant, banker, merchant, or agent. She contended that the alleged act would fall under Section 407 IPC. The applicant further submitted that the defalcated amount has already been adjusted by KJS Cement Limited against her bills. She also stated that she had entrusted the cement to another transporter who committed the offense of non-delivery, and thus, she is not directly responsible. The applicant also pointed to a previous order granting her anticipatory bail in a similar case. Contentions of the Respondent (State): The respondent opposed the application, stating that three cases are registered against the applicant. They argued that the applicant's modus operandi is to give goods to another transporter for delivery, and subsequently, the goods are not delivered. This, according to the respondent, is a tactic to evade criminal liability and shift blame, even though the applicant is the beneficiary of the embezzlement or non-delivery. Therefore, the respondent argued that the applicant should not be released on anticipatory bail.