01Facts
The complainant, through SJM Minerals, supplied 2,437.810 MT of steel billets worth ₹12,63,72,632 to buyers in Gujarat pursuant to a purchase order issued by Bolster Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Of that amount, ₹7,36,18,158 was paid, leaving ₹5,27,54,474 outstanding.
¶ 1–2The complainant alleged that the applicant introduced him to co-accused Anil Rai and suspected a planned cheating scheme after Anil Rai stopped responding; the FIR was registered under Sections 318(4), 317(4), 111(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
¶ 1–2The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, submitting that his role was limited to introducing the parties and that the dispute arose from a business transaction.
¶ 3The State and objector opposed the application, relying on the applicant’s role in arranging and attending a meeting and the complainant’s subsequent request that he intervene over the unpaid balance.
¶ 4–502Issues
i.Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 0317/2026, having regard to the allegations and the role attributed to him.
¶ 7–8ii.Whether the applicant’s alleged involvement in introducing the complainant to the co-accused and arranging a meeting warranted custodial arrest despite the transaction being partly paid.
¶ 7–803Law Applied
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for a direction for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest.
¶ 1The alleged offences were under Sections 318(4), 317(4), 111(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
¶ 1The Court stated no precedent or further legal test; it considered the facts and circumstances, nature of the allegations and transaction, and the role attributed to the applicant in deciding whether to grant anticipatory bail.
¶ 8Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 318Section 317Section 111Section 3
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the applicant had arranged a meeting pursuant to which the complainant supplied goods worth approximately ₹12 crore to the co-accused, but approximately ₹7 crore had been paid and the balance remained unpaid.
¶ 7Considering the nature of the transaction and the role attributed to the applicant, the Court concluded that anticipatory bail was appropriate, without expressing any view on the merits of the case.
¶ 805Holding
The application was allowed.
¶ 9The Court directed that, in the event of arrest in Crime No. 0317/2026, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount, subject to conditions including availability for interrogation, non-interference with witnesses or the investigation, conduct consistent with a fair and expeditious trial, and appearance before the trial court on each date.
¶ 9A certified copy was directed to be sent to the trial court.
¶ 10Original Court PDF
BIPIN RATURIvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
