Anticipatory Bail Denied in Economic Offence Where Prima Facie Deception Precludes Characterisation as Failed Business Transaction

The prosecution alleged that on September 1, 2025, the applicant induced the complainant to transfer ₹3,54,00,000 for the sale of shares that the applicant did not actually possess

Although the applicant later transferred shares worth ₹88,00,000, cash totaling ₹65,00,000, and property documents to secure the balance, two subsequent cheques totaling ₹2,00,98,000 bounced

The applicant contended it was a failed business deal caused by a third party, Heet Shah, who failed to deliver the shares to him

the State argued that Heet Shah was a "dummy" used to siphon funds and noted the applicant is a previous convict under Section 138 of the NI Act with other pending fraud cases

1. Whether the transaction in question constitutes a mere civil dispute arising from a failed business deal or a criminal offence of cheating warranting custodial interrogation.

2. Whether the applicant’s conduct and criminal antecedents disentitle him to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail in an economic offence.

The court applied Section 318(4) (Cheating) and Section 3(5) (Common Intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

In cases involving economic offences and financial fraud, the grant of anticipatory bail should be restricted to rare circumstances

The court also distinguished the precedents Rajesh Sanghal v. State of Haryana and Amit Jain v. State, holding that the availability of bail depends on the specific factual matrix of the case

The court rejected the applicant's contention that the matter was purely civil. It observed that the applicant accepted ₹3,54,00,000 despite knowing he did not hold the shares at the time of the transaction

The court found the applicant's claim—that the complainant transferred the money voluntarily—unconvincing, noting that the applicant issued a delivery slip and email confirmation for the shares rather than returning the funds immediately

the court highlighted that Heet Shah's role appeared suspicious, supporting the State’s claim that custodial interrogation was necessary to "unearth the expanse of the alleged offence"

The court further weighed the applicant’s "antecedents," including a prior conviction and another pending FIR for financial fraud, as factors that militate against exercising discretionary powers in his favor

The court answered that the transaction bore clear marks of criminality rather than a simple civil breach of contract. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application and all accompanying applications were dismissed