Mohit Kumar vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant. The Court considered the submissions made by both parties. The applicant's claim of being a registered GST and Income Tax payee and the dispute over the supply of iron bars were taken into account. The Court also noted the applicant's counsel's statement that no other FIR was registered against the applicant. However, the Court imposed a condition that if any other offence under Sections 420, 467, or 468 of the IPC is registered against the applicant prior to the date of the order and is brought to the notice of the trial court, the trial court would be at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one solvent surety and to join the investigation immediately, cooperating with the investigating agency, and abiding by the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Mohit Kumar, proprietor of Shyam Traders, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 664/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Chhatarpur, for offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The applicant is accused of cheating by allegedly not paying for iron bars purchased from the complainant. The applicant claims he purchased iron bars from the complainant and disputes the supply, asserting he is a registered GST and Income Tax payee and has no intention to evade the law. The State and the complainant opposed the bail, alleging a modus operandi of placing large orders and then defaulting on payments, citing other similar complaints.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No. 664/2023 for offences under Section 420 of the IPC? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is a proprietor of Shyam Traders, dealing in iron bars, and that there is a dispute regarding payment for iron bars allegedly purchased. They contended that no iron bars were actually supplied and that the applicant is a registered GST and Income Tax payee, indicating no intent to abscond or evade the law. Reliance was placed on the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, suggesting its applicability. The applicant's counsel also stated that no other FIR has been registered against the applicant. Respondent's Arguments: The State and the complainant's counsel opposed the bail application, submitting that the applicant has a modus operandi of placing orders for steel, entering into large transactions, and then failing to make payments, thereby cheating sellers. They alleged that multiple such complaints have been registered against the applicant, citing instances from Bhind and Dewas.