Shahid Khumani vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. While not commenting on the merits of the case, the Court considered the arguments advanced by both parties and the overall circumstances. The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- with one solvent surety of the same amount. The conditions for bail included making himself available for investigation, not committing similar offences, not inducing or threatening witnesses, not tampering with evidence, furnishing a fresh bond upon submission of the final report, remaining present on every date of hearing, ensuring compliance with Section 309 of Cr.P.C., and marking his presence before the SHO, Lahar, District Bhind, once in the first week of every month until the completion of the investigation. The order was to be effective till the end of the trial, subject to compliance with bail conditions.

Facts

The applicant, Shahid Khumani, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 253/2023 registered at Police Station Lahar, District Bhind, for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that he paid Rs. 1.25 crores in advance to the applicant for the purchase of TMT Sariya. While Rs. Five Lacs was transferred on 01/05/2023, and further amounts were transferred on multiple occasions, the applicant failed to deliver the goods. The complainant also alleged that the applicant threatened to upload forged bills on the GST portal and had defrauded others. The applicant contended that the matter involved a commercial civil transaction, that he had been transacting with the complainant since 2019, and that the FIR was registered without an inquiry. He claimed he was falsely implicated and was ready to cooperate with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of cheating and non-delivery of goods, and the applicant's contention that the dispute is purely commercial? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the transaction was commercial and civil in nature, and that the FIR was registered without proper inquiry. He asserted that there was no likelihood of tampering with evidence as it was documentary and that he would cooperate with the investigation. He also claimed that jail incarceration would cause unnecessary hardship. Revenue's Arguments: The State, assisted by the complainant's counsel, opposed the bail application. They argued that the complainant was cheated of approximately One Crore Rupees, no goods were delivered, and the investigation would reveal cheating and forgery. They contended that at the preliminary stage of investigation, anticipatory bail should not be granted.