Anticipatory bail granted where business disputes between relatives appear predominantly civil and lack documentary evidence.

The applicants, two brothers, sought anticipatory bail regarding an FIR registered for offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The complainant, the brother-in-law of Applicant No. 1, alleged that the parties entered into a joint business for the supply of steel furniture in 2023

The complainant claimed that despite payments and the supply of jaggery worth approximately ₹70,26,000/- to settle accounts, the applicants failed to fulfill their financial obligations

It was further alleged that two cheques issued by the applicants to settle the debt were dishonored due to the closure of the accounts

The applicants contended that the FIR was a pressurized tactic to avoid payments due to them and noted the lack of documentary evidence for the alleged jaggery supply

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, considering the nature of the business dispute

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the grant of bail to persons apprehending arrest

Substantive charges were considered under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, specifically Section 318(4) (cheating) and Section 3(5) (joint liability)

The court relied on the legal principle that matters predominantly civil in nature, arising out of commercial or financial dealings between closely related parties, may warrant the grant of anticipatory bail, especially where documentary evidence for the alleged criminal act is lacking

The Court observed that the dispute originated from business transactions between close relatives, specifically brothers-in-law

In evaluating the gravity of the allegations, the Court highlighted that the complainant’s claim regarding the supply of jaggery worth ₹10,00,000/- was not supported by any documentary evidence, such as bills or receipts

Based on the materials available on record, the Court reasoned that the dispute appeared to be "predominantly civil in nature," stemming from financial dealings rather than a clear-cut criminal intent to cheat

Consequently, the Court found the applicants' plea for protection from arrest to be justified given the context of the business relationship and the nature of the evidence

It directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and one surety, subject to several conditions: (a) non-interference with witnesses; (b) cooperation with the trial; (c) regular appearance before the trial court; (d) submission of verified identification (Aadhar) and photographs; and (e) abstaining from future similar offences