Emphasising that criminal courts are not forum for recovery of money or goods in situations pertaining to the recovery of yarn through custodial interrogation, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to the accused/ applicant. The Court clarified that whether or not the accused/applicant sold the yarn without bills also does not fall within the domain of the present criminal proceedings.
The Court found that no evidence has been shown to even prima facie establish that the accused/applicant had any dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. Rather, at the inception of the business transaction, the accused/applicant did make part payments.
The Court said that if this ingredient of dishonest intention is overlooked, then every failed business transaction would attract penal consequences, which was never the intention of the legislature. Essentially, these observations are subject to final outcome of the trial. Hence, since chargesheet has already been filed, the Court held that no purpose would be served by sending the accused/applicant back to jail.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that what has to be probed is as to whether the facts alleged and material collected during investigation make out the ingredients of the offence alleged, when the quantum of alleged loss does not make the loss an unlawful loss. The Bench pointed out that what is to be considered is as to whether the necessary ingredients of cheating are completed.
Briefly, the allegation against the accused/applicant is that in the course of business, he purchased yarn from the complainant de facto, but did not pay full consideration thereof. Now, since the predecessor benches of this Court has granted interim bail and the accused/applicant has not misused the interim bail in any manner whatsoever and now chargesheet stands filed, it was pleaded that no purpose would be served by sending the accused/applicant back to jail.
It was also contended that a purely civil transaction has been given colour of criminality. This was opposed by the APP for State contending that the cheating involves more than Rs.3 crores and grant of bail in such case would not be appropriate.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Kirtiman Singh, along with Advocates Rajat Kapoor, Sandeep Mishra, Mawlik Khurana, Ayush Vardhan and Surbhit Nandan, for the Petitioner
APP Amit Ahlawat, for the State
Advocates Vipul Sharma and Deepika, for the Complainant
