Facts
The applicant, a manager at a Mahindra tractor showroom, was accused of conspiring with the principal accused, Sarvesh Tiwari, to defraud the complainant, Fede.
Source reference: para 2Tiwari allegedly misled the complainant into signing loan documents as a borrower for a tractor worth ₹8,83,136 while representing that the complainant was merely a guarantor.
Source reference: para 2It is alleged that the applicant colluded with Tiwari to facilitate the financing and obtain five blank cheques from the complainant under false pretenses.
Source reference: para 2The applicant filed for anticipatory bail, arguing that his name was absent from the FIR, he was implicated solely via a memorandum statement of a co-accused, and no charge-sheet had been submitted against him.
Source reference: para 3Issues
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the allegations and the absence of his name in the FIR.
Source reference: para 6Law Applied
The court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of anticipatory bail.
Source reference: para 1The substantive offenses involved were Sections 420 (cheating) and 120(B) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Source reference: para 1The court also considered the legal significance of the absence of criminal antecedents and the weight of memorandum statements in bail proceedings.
Source reference: para 6Reasoning
The court examined the prosecution's allegations of fraud alongside the applicant's defense of false implication.
Source reference: para 6It noted that the applicant's name was not mentioned in the FIR and that his involvement was primarily suggested by the memorandum statement of a co-accused.
Source reference: para 6The court further took into account that the applicant had no prior criminal record.
Source reference: para 6By weighing the lack of direct mention in the initial report against the circumstantial nature of the evidence provided at this stage, the court determined that the applicant’s apprehension of arrest justified the protection of anticipatory bail.
Source reference: para 6Holding
The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application.
It directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released upon executing a personal bond and one surety, subject to the conditions that he: (a) does not influence witnesses; (b) ensures a fair and expeditious trial; (c) appears before the trial court on all dates; (d) submits verified Aadhaar details; and (e) refrains from committing similar offenses.
Source reference: para 7Original Court PDF
MO. MAHABUB AALAM @ MINTUvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in