Anticipatory bail granted where civil disputes are criminalized for recovery without documentary evidence of cheating.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 206/2024, registered at PS Amar Colony for alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, and 506 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner induced the de facto complainant to transfer funds under the pretext of purchasing land in their joint names, but subsequently purchased the land individually and sold it for profit

Conversely, the petitioner argued the transaction was a simple loan and that criminal proceedings were being used to settle a civil dispute

Interim protection from arrest had been in place since October 4, 2024

1. Whether the allegations prima facie constitute the criminal offence of cheating or represent a civil dispute regarding a loan transaction

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail based on the lack of documentary evidence supporting the prosecution’s claims

The court examined the provisions of Sections 406 (Criminal breach of trust), 420 (Cheating), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code

It applied the principle established by the Supreme Court that criminal proceedings must not be exploited to settle civil disputes

Additionally, the court relied on the legal doctrine that bail courts are not intended to function as money recovery forums

The court noted the absence of any documentary evidence or receipts to prove that the money transferred to the petitioner was intended for a joint land purchase

It questioned why the complainant did not pay the seller directly if the intent was a joint acquisition

Furthermore, the court observed that the parties had previously attempted mediation, suggesting that the complainant’s primary objective was the recovery of money rather than criminal prosecution

The court reasoned that since the prosecution could not prima facie establish the specific purpose of the fund transfer, the matter appeared to be a civil loan transaction rather than a criminal act of cheating

Consequently, the court found no reason to deprive the petitioner of his liberty

It directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO

The petitioner was further ordered to join the investigation whenever directed in writing by the Investigating Officer