Facts
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 128/2025 involving alleged offenses under Sections 406/420/34 IPC
Source reference: p. 1-2The complainant alleged he was induced by relatives to invest Rs. 2.5 Crores for a 20% stake in Fienza Ceramics LLP
Source reference: p. 2-3While Rs. 98,00,000/- was transferred to the LLP bank account and reflected in balance sheets as an "unsecured loan," the promised partnership was never transferred
Source reference: p. 4-5The petitioner joined the LLP as a designated partner on March 3, 2025, significantly after the alleged period of inducement and transaction (April–November 2023)
Source reference: p. 4, 6Following two failed mediation attempts and the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation under interim protection, the court heard the final arguments
Source reference: p. 2, 8Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS considering his entry into the LLP occurred after the alleged date of offense
Source reference: p. 6, 82. Whether the inclusion of the complainant’s funds as an "unsecured loan" in a balance sheet signed by the petitioner constitutes sufficient evidence of criminal conspiracy to warrant custodial interrogation
Source reference: p. 7-9Law Applied
The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding anticipatory bail
Source reference: p. 1It relied on the Supreme Court precedents in Ramesh Kumar v. State and Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar, which established that criminal proceedings must not be used as a tool for money recovery and that bail considerations should remain independent of repayment status
Source reference: p. 8The court also considered the principles of vicarious liability and knowledge within a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) framework
Source reference: p. 9Reasoning
The Court observed that the petitioner became a partner on 03.03.2025, which was subsequent to the transactions occurring in 2023
Source reference: p. 8The prosecution admitted there was no material showing direct contact or inducement between the petitioner and the complainant; allegations were primarily directed at co-accused Ashok Sharma and others
Source reference: p. 9Although the petitioner signed the 2024-2025 balance sheet reflecting the funds as an "unsecured loan," the Court noted this practice was consistent with the previous year's accounts prepared before the petitioner joined
Source reference: p. 8-9The Court reasoned that even if this was an incorrect accounting practice, it was insufficient to justify the deprivation of liberty, especially given the petitioner's advanced age (71 years), clean criminal record, and his cooperation with the Investigating Officer during interim protection
Source reference: p. 7, 9Holding
The Court granted the anticipatory bail application, answering that the petitioner's subsequent joining of the LLP and lack of direct involvement favored his release
It directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions including continued cooperation with the investigation, not influencing witnesses, and providing a permanent mobile number and address to the IO
Source reference: p. 10Original Court PDF
Ghisulal JainvsState Of Nct Of Delhi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in