2021 (9) TMI 938 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of anticipatory bail - Dishonor of cheque - complainant has issued the cheque to the applicant or not - misuse of cheque - HELD THAT - Taking into consideration, the nature of allegations levelled in the complaint against applicant and two other persons. Applicant has placed on record Annexure A-2 which are the bills towards supply of material to Ganga Construction. After dishonoring the cheques on 18.1.2017 legal notice was issued thereafter the complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act was filed before the court of competent jurisdiction. The fact that co-accused Nandkishor on 12.08.2021 withdrawn proceedings filed under Negotiable Instrument Act by him against complainant mentioning that settlement has been arrived between the parties, without commenting anything on merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with the crime in question (278/2017), he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting Officer - the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigation Officer as and when required - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC for the offence under Section 420/34 of IPC based on allegations of cheque misuse and non-payment.

Analysis:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC due to the fear of arrest in connection with a case registered under Crime No. 278/2017 for the offence under Section 420/34 of IPC. The prosecution's case revolved around allegations made by Suryakant Tiwari, Director of M/s Ganga Construction, who claimed that the applicant, along with others, misused cheques handed over to a contractor, leading to the filing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The applicant, represented by Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, argued that he was a material supplier to Ganga Construction and had issued a cheque for the material supplied, which was dishonored, leading to the complaint. The applicant contended that the complaint was filed with ill motives to pressurize him, and he had not committed any offence as alleged.

The State counsel, Mr. B.L. Sahu, opposed the bail application, alleging that the applicant misused the cheques with two other co-accused individuals. It was argued that the applicant had approached the court for anticipatory bail only in 2021, despite the FIR being lodged in 2017, indicating a lack of entitlement to relief under Section 438 of CrPC. However, there was no mention of any police action against the applicant until 2021 in the case diary.

After hearing both parties, the court considered the nature of allegations, the bills for material supply submitted by the applicant, and the withdrawal of proceedings by a co-accused due to a settlement with the complainant. The court, without commenting on the case's merits, granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. The conditions imposed included making himself available for interrogation, refraining from influencing witnesses, ensuring a fair trial, and appearing before the trial court as required.

In conclusion, the court allowed the application for anticipatory bail, directing the applicant's release upon arrest in connection with the case, subject to the specified conditions to ensure compliance and fair trial proceedings.