Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Mohit Goel, filed an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 25/2021 registered at Police Station Model Town, Delhi under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The prosecution alleged that the complainant, proprietor of M/s Shikha Agra India, was induced by the petitioner and other accused persons to supply 50,000 kg of Chana worth ₹27.50 lakh on the representation that the goods were required to fulfil supply obligations to the Delhi Government. An advance of ₹5.50 lakh was paid, while a post-dated cheque of ₹22 lakh was issued as security. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured, and the balance amount remained unpaid. Consequently, after proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC, an FIR under Sections 420/34 IPC was registered.

The petitioner denied any connection with the alleged firm, M/s Ayurvedic Commodities Company, claiming it belonged exclusively to another accused, Sone Lal, and that he was neither its proprietor nor associated with its affairs.

 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
  2. Whether the allegations disclosed a prima facie offence of cheating under Sections 415 and 420 IPC.
  3. Whether custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary considering the nature of allegations and the ongoing investigation.
  4. Whether the petitioner's conduct during the proceedings justified cancellation of interim anticipatory bail.

 

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner contended that:

  • He had no connection whatsoever with M/s Ayurvedic Commodities Company, which was solely owned by Sone Lal.
  • He was a businessman and Director of M/s Family of Dry Fruits India Pvt. Ltd., having no association with the alleged firm.
  • The dishonoured cheque relied upon by the complainant had been signed only by Sone Lal, establishing that the petitioner was not involved.
  • He himself had previously lodged an FIR against Sone Lal and the said firm regarding monetary disputes.
  • References made by the complainant to several criminal cases against him were misleading because many such proceedings had already been quashed.

 

Respondent's Arguments

The State opposed the anticipatory bail application by submitting that:

  • Documentary evidence including purchase orders, invoices and the dishonoured cheque established the fraudulent transaction.
  • Investigation revealed that Sone Lal was the registered proprietor of the firm, but statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC from former employees disclosed that the business was actually being operated by the petitioner and his associates.
  • Investigation further revealed that the petitioner had been arrested in several similar cheating cases involving the same modus operandi.
  • Other accused persons remained absconding, and custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary to uncover the larger conspiracy.
  • The petitioner had failed to cooperate with the investigation despite enjoying interim protection from arrest.

 

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application and cancelled the interim protection earlier granted to the petitioner.

The Court observed that:

  • Statements recorded during investigation contradicted the petitioner's claim of having no association with the alleged firm.
  • The allegations disclosed a prima facie offence of cheating, and the Court found no reason to conclude that the FIR was malicious or inherently improbable.
  • Considering the gravity of allegations, custodial interrogation was necessary, particularly since the principal co-accused remained absconding.
  • The petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigation even after receiving interim anticipatory bail.

The Court also took serious note of the petitioner's conduct during the proceedings.

Earlier, while seeking interim protection, the petitioner had voluntarily undertaken to pay ₹10 lakh to the complainant as a gesture of bona fide. On that assurance, interim anticipatory bail had been granted. However, despite repeated opportunities extending over several months, the petitioner neither complied with the undertaking nor honoured his commitment.

The Court held that this conduct clearly indicated that the undertaking was merely a device to obtain interim protection and delay the investigation. The petitioner continued to enjoy the benefit of interim bail while repeatedly seeking adjournments without fulfilling his promise.

Accordingly, considering:

  • the gravity of the offence,
  • the ongoing investigation,
  • the petitioner's non-cooperation,
  • his failure to honour his undertaking, and
  • the necessity of custodial interrogation,

the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application and cancelled the interim anticipatory bail previously granted. It also clarified that the observations made in the order would not affect the merits of the trial.

 

Important Clarification

The Court clarified that:

  • Anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
  • Mere denial of involvement is insufficient where investigation produces material indicating participation in the alleged offence.
  • Failure to honour an undertaking given before the Court may be treated as conduct disentitling an accused from equitable discretionary relief.
  • Interim protection cannot be used as a means to delay investigation or avoid custodial interrogation.
  • The observations made in the bail order shall not influence the merits of the criminal trial.

 

Sections Involved

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

  • Section 438 – Anticipatory Bail
  • Section 156(3) – Magistrate's power to order investigation
  • Section 91 – Summons for production of documents
  • Section 161 – Examination of witnesses by police

Indian Penal Code, 1860

  • Section 34 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
  • Section 415 – Cheating
  • Section 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

Link to Download the Order https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1782893575_67.pdf


Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.