Anticipatory bail granted where cheating allegations arise from documented commercial transactions and counter-litigations.

The applicants sought anticipatory bail concerning Crime No. 405/2022 registered for offences under Sections 120-B, 34, 406, 409, and 420 of the IPC

The complainant alleged that the applicants, representing themselves as loan facilitators, induced him to pay approximately Rs. 31,00,000 (partly in cash and partly via bank transfer) as processing fees for a promised Rs. 25 crore loan, which was never sanctioned

The applicants countered that the FIR was a "counterblast" to hide the complainant's own fraudulent activities

They asserted that they had a genuine business relationship with the complainant and had invested Rs. 52,00,000 into the complainant’s company, which the complainant failed to repay

The applicants further highlighted the complainant's extensive criminal history involving similar financial frauds

Whether the applicants are entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given the commercial nature of the dispute and the existence of counter-litigations

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, regarding the grant of anticipatory bail

to sustain charges of cheating (Section 420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (Sections 406/409 IPC), the prosecution must eventually establish the existence of "dishonest intention from the inception" of the transaction

discretionary relief of bail is warranted when custodial interrogation is unnecessary and the dispute appears essentially civil or commercial in nature

The Court noted that while the allegations involved significant sums, the undisputed existence of prior business transactions and the use of banking channels indicated a commercial background rather than a purely criminal enterprise

The Hon’ble Chief Justice observed that the presence of multiple criminal cases and litigations between the parties suggested a history of strained relations and retaliatory legal actions

The Court reasoned that the essential element of "dishonest intention" at the start of the agreement is a matter for trial, not a ground for pre-trial detention in this context

Finding that the applicants had cooperated with the investigation and that custodial interrogation was not required to further the probe, the Court determined that the applicants' liberty should be protected

The Court held that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond with one local surety each, subject to conditions including: (a) non-interference with witnesses, (b) regular appearance before the trial court, and (c) submission of verified identification (Aadhaar) documents

The Court clarified that this grant of bail was based on the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation and the commercial background of the dispute, without expressing an opinion on the final merits of the trial