P&H HC Denies Anticipatory Bail to Man Accused of Inducing Fabric Suppliers, Citing Alleged Shift of 1,000 Rolls

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The allegations were that he and a co-accused induced suppliers to provide fabric on credit for two firms, failed to pay for the goods, and that about 1,000 rolls of fabric were later moved at the petitioner’s instance.

The petitioner maintained that the dispute was commercial, that he was not formally a proprietor or partner of the firms, and that he had returned to India and would cooperate.

The State relied on witness statements and WhatsApp communications indicating his active role, and sought custodial interrogation to investigate the goods’ movement and related financial transactions.

An earlier anticipatory-bail application had been dismissed.

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 438 CrPC, governs the application for anticipatory bail.

Section 318 BNS requires deception accompanied by fraudulent or dishonest inducement; for an offence involving delivery of property, the dishonest intention must exist at the inception of the transaction. A subsequent failure to perform a promise, without more, is insufficient. Section 316 BNS requires entrustment of property or dominion over it, followed by dishonest misappropriation or conversion.

In G. Saminathan and another v. The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police and another, 2026 INSC 772, the Supreme Court emphasised that the ingredients of the alleged offences must be examined and that contractual non-performance alone does not justify criminal proceedings.

Under Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K. and another, (2022) 17 SCC 391, the need for custodial interrogation is relevant to anticipatory bail but is not the sole criterion; the nature of the accusations, prima facie material, and other circumstances must also be considered.

The Court accepted that mere non-payment in a commercial transaction would not, by itself, establish the requisite criminal offences.

However, the allegations went beyond unpaid invoices: the prosecution attributed to the petitioner a direct role in approaching suppliers, procuring goods on credit, negotiating rates, and assuring payment.

The employee’s statement and WhatsApp communications were relied on as evidence of his participation; the firms’ GST particulars did not exclude his involvement in their actual business affairs.

The Court considered the petitioner’s return and willingness to cooperate but weighed them against the alleged removal and movement of approximately 1,000 rolls of fabric and the identified need to investigate their disposal and related financial transactions.

Applying Sumitha Pradeep, it held that custodial interrogation was a relevant, specifically grounded investigative consideration, while not treating it as the sole basis for refusal.

The petition was dismissed.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the anticipatory-bail application and would not affect the merits of the case.