Facts of the Case

The applicant, Madan Prasad, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Crime No. 913/2021, registered under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution's case was that a transit mixer machine was given on rent by the complainant, Smt. Neelam Lumba, to one Brijkishore Das under an agreement dated 07.09.2021, at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,20,000 plus 18% GST; when the rent went unpaid, an FIR was lodged against Brijkishore Das, the applicant, and one Trishit Sen. The 18% GST figure is simply part of the commercial rent term in this rental dispute, and the case does not raise any GST law question.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the applicant, said to be a partner of the firm that took the machine on rent, should be granted anticipatory bail in the cheating/criminal breach of trust case.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The applicant was not personally a party to the rental agreement (which was between the complainant and Brijkishore Das alone), and had in fact already paid two months' rent of Rs. 2,59,600/-, evidencing good faith rather than any intent to cheat.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The objector (complainant's side) contended that the mixer machine was handed over to a firm in which the applicant and Brijkishore Das were partners, making the applicant equally liable for the unpaid rent, and opposed anticipatory bail.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that the rental agreement itself was executed between the complainant and Brijkishore Das, and the applicant was not a direct party to it.
  • Considering this, along with the case diary, the Court extended the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
  • Bail was made conditional on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-, with directions not to influence witnesses, not to act prejudicially to the trial, to remain available for interrogation, and not to commit similar offences; the trial court was directed not to be influenced by these observations.

Important Clarification

This bail order does not touch on any GST law question — the 18% GST mentioned is simply part of the agreed commercial rent for the machine, and the case turns entirely on ordinary criminal-law questions of who was actually a party to the rental agreement.

Sections Involved

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 406, 420 and 34, under which the case was registered.
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438, under which anticipatory bail was sought and granted.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the applicant — anticipatory bail was granted, subject to standard conditions.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
  • Case Number: M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1023 of 2023
  • Coram: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
  • Date of Order: 20.09.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.