Sandeep Sapra vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard.

This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.320/2022 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the IPC.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.8.2022, complainant Piyush Gupta lodged an FIR that he had paid 7,20,000/- in cash to applicant No.2 Tahzibul Hasan in advance and had also given two blank cheques as a security for supplying the order of the books. However, the books, for which the order was placed, were not supplied and on 7.3.2022, through Bhaiya Industries, Indore, 75 cartoon books were sent for which no order was placed and thereby, applicant No.2 Tahzibul Hasan and applicant No.1 Sandeep Sapra, Manager of Headword Publication Ltd. have cheated him. Based upon such allegations, the aforesaid offence has been registered.

Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. The applicants are only the employees of Headword Publishing Private Ltd. and have collected the orders of the books and the advance payment from Shree Book Depot and the order was also duly placed to the said firm. The said firm has also supplied the order and it is duly acknowledged in the FIR itself that the books were received on 7.3.2022. He would further submit that no communication was made by the complainant that the books, for which the order was placed, were not supplied and the books were mismatching. Hence, there is a civil dispute between the parties, for which, without any enquiry, the FIR has been lodged. Hence, learned Senior Counsel prays for extending the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to the applicants.

Per contra, Mr. Sudhir Sahu, learned counsel for the State as also Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel for the Objector would oppose the bail application.

Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the applicants, in a deceitful manner, have obtained the advance amount and supplied those books, for which no order was placed though proper communication was made to the supplier firm. He submits that during the beginning of the academic session, when the books were not supplied, the complainant, in such circumstances, on 29.3.2022, purchased the said books from the Prozo Distribution Private Ltd. He lastly submits that the applicants have cheated and caused loss to the complainant and therefore, the applicants may not be extended the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also considering the nature of dispute and further considering the principle of law laid down in the matter of Lalita Kumari Vs. Goverment of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1, wherein, it has been observed that in certain instances, preliminary enquiry may be required and for commercial offence, a preliminary enquiry has to be conducted, and further considering that in the instant case, a bare reading of the FIR itself would show that before registration of the offence, no such preliminary enquiry has been conducted and there is also no mention that upon any such enquiry, the aforesaid FIR has been registered, this Court is of the opinion that the present is a fit case, in which, the applicants should be extended the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.PC.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions:-

(a) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the concerned police officer as and when so required,

(b) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court or to any police officer,

(c) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial,

(d) after filing of the charge sheet, they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial,

(e) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.