High Court · 2022

there is no credible evidence against them. It was submitted that the applicants are employees of Keleone Company, which facilitates Indian export factories to French retail buyers for ready made garment. In February/March 2021 the complainant company Kashvi design has approached the Keleone company and thereafter it has connected complainant company to one Leon & Harper (L & H) and on 13.04.2022 said company placed a purchase order and the delivery was to be made by

17.07.2021 for total Euro 70,912/- but the complainant company failed to deliver the goods by the said date. It was submitted that the complainant company started delivery from

07.08.2021 and final shipment was delivered on 14.09.2021 and thus, on account of delay in delivery, the said L & H company imposed penalty on complainant company and withheld the payments as per the agreement and this fact was communicated to the complainant company, however, the applicant No. 2 has requested the buyer to make payment and thereafter said L & H company has paid Euro 47,870/-. On 08.10.2021 the applicant No. 1 has made complaint to complainant company regarding misbehaviour of of Naresh Kumar and for demand of commission of Rs. 5,60,658/- and thereafter this first information report was got lodged by the complainant by moving an application u/s 156(3) CrPC. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, as the dispute relates to business transaction. The company of applicants has merely worked as facilitator between the complainant company and the buyer company. The applicants have co-operated during investigation. The investigation is complete and charge sheet was filed and that court below has directed for further investigation in the matter. The applicants undertake to co-operate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant have strongly opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that it is a case of serious economic fraud and that there is absolutely no apprehension of arrest of applicants and thus, the instant application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Before the court below it was argued on behalf of prosecution that applicants have no apprehension of arrest and the anticipatory bail of applicants was rejected by the court below. It was further submitted that applicants were even not authorized to enter into the alleged agreement. Referring to facts of matter, it was stated that on 13.04.2021 an order was issued by L & H company to Keleone company for supply of goods. Performa invoice was issued by the complainant company for supply of goods till 17.07.2021. Thereafter acceptance was issued by HSBC Bank, Paris containing conditions of penalty on delayed delivery of goods. It was submitted that the applicants have cheated the complainant company in the tune of huge amounts. In view of nature of allegations made in the first information report, the applicants are not entitled for anticipatory bail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the complainant has referred the cases of Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I. And Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 825 and Shivam v. State of U.P. & Ors., Manu/UP/0475/2021. I have considered the rival submissions and perused record as well the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the complainant. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. In the instant matter considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, role of applicants, nature of transaction between the parties and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the applicants are entitled for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Anuraj Ratna, Boris Morgan Denoual, Narendra Sharma and Abhilash Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions :-

1. The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

2.The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

3.The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

4. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

5. The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicants in accordance with law. Order Date :- 6.9.2022 Anand Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad