MCRC/51321/2023 of ROOPAL W/O CHETANBHAI MAVANI THROUGH MR. DIGNESH LAKHANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024

ORDER

Heard and perused the record.

This first bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant underSection 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail relating toCrime/FIR No.54/2023 dated 22.09.2023, registered at Police Station-CrimeBranch, District-Indore (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 420, 409, 467,468 & 470 of IPC, 1860. The applicant is in custody since 29.10.2023.

2. Before dwelling upon bail, it is pertinent to mention here that earlier thisCourt has passed the bail order dated 23.11.2023 against which the applicantapproached Hon'ble the Apex Court and vide order dated 08.01.2024, Hon'bleApex Court has passed the order of remand for fresh hearing of this applicationand decide the same on merits without being influenced by the order of thisCourt as well as order of Hon'ble Apex Court.

3. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that, the police has receivedan information on written complaint from complainant Henna Day W/oDevashish that Manager of the Sky High Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. has got an orderon 10.05.2023 from Noor Al Hiba Trading L.L.C., Dubai forsupplying/exporting 13 matric tons cumin seeds (jeera) to a Dubai basedcompany AI Hiba Trading LLC. Further, Bhavesh Vijayvargiya, who is agent ofcomplainant company, has initiated process to procure cumin seeds and hecontacted Mr. Rajesh Chettiar, representative of Web Business Tech. Pvt. Ltd..Mr. Rajesh Chettiar informed Bhavesh Vijayvargiya about M/s. Mhaske & SonsTrading, company of selling products (Masala) in Aurangabad. BhaveshVijayvargiya placed an order with M/s Mhaske & Sons to supply 13 tons ofcumin seeds at the rate of Rs.425 per kg. and it was decided to send thematerial to JNPT Port, Mumbai on receipt of 75-80% amount of Rs.55,25,000/-. Thereafter, another order to supply 14 metric tons of cumin seeds was placedto M/s Mhaske & Sons at the rate of Rs.535/- per kg.

4. The complainant has paid Rs. 1,06,71,000/- to M/s Mhaske & Sons.Thereafter, the complainant and her husband Devashish Day who is Director ofthe company went to Gujrat on request of Vinay Kumar and inspected thegoods kept in Jasdan in Gujrat. Vinay Kumar, the representative of M/s Mhaske

& Sons has assured them that total goods purchased by them are available atRajkot for sortex and packaging. Vinay Kumar proposed to sell their productsin the local market and call a meeting at Surat, Gujrat where representatives ofGreen India, Sky High Trade Links Pvt. ltd., Sonal Cultivation and M/s Mhaske& Sons were there and thereafter, applicant was introduced to complainantwherein the applicant assured complainant that material is lying at godown ofMr. Jayendra Khaachar would be sold in local market. Further, it is alleged thatM/s Mhaske & Sons and applicant have not paid the amount accrued towardssell of cumin seeds. During the investigation, it is also alleged that the applicanthas produced bills and transport bills which were found forged.

5. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant hasbeen falsely implicated in the present case, she does not have any connectionwith the complainant as she has not received any amount from the complainantand also applicant is not privy to any transaction with the complainant. Thecomplainant has herself mentioned connections in the FIR. He further submitsthat the FIR is registered in gross abuse and process to twist arm in order toillegally extract money by creating pressure on applicant. In the FIR, it isadmitted that the goods were purchased by Vinay Kumar, representative of M/sMhaske & Sons Trading and kept in godown situated at Jasdan owned byJayendra Khachhar which was inspected by the complainant and her husbandwho is the Director of the company and they decided that after sortex andpackaging, the same will be sent to JNPT Port, Mumbai.

6 . Learned Senior counsel for the applicant also submits that it isundisputed facts that Vinay Kumar was making false promises by saying thegoods were not sent to Mumbai due to heavy rain and thereafter, he went toKolkata for some work, further he said the goods were not sent to Dubai due to Bakrid festival and cancellation of FSSAI License of the company of Dubai. Sofar as the allegation against the applicant, of assurance for selling goods indomestic market, in the meeting held at Surat (Gujrat), where Vinay Kumarintroduced the applicant with the complainant, it was decided to sell the goodsin domestic market with the consent of concerned company as the license of FSSAI of the Dubai company has been cancelled. The applicant has neithermade any false promise nor received any amount relating to this deal. Thepresent applicant is a lady who is having three kids and she is in custody since29.10.2023.

7. So far as the forged documents are concerned, the applicant has notsubmitted or made any false and fabricated documents. it is also undisputedfact that the representative of M/s Mhaske & Sons Trading and complainanthave themselves verified the factum of availability of cumin seeds at Rajkot keptfor sortex and packaging, hence, question of making forged documents doesnot arise in any corner of the case and if the case is seen thoroughly, thecontract was executed between the complainant and M/s Mhaske & SonsTrading but no allegation has been made in the charge-sheet against theproprietor and representative of M/s Mhaske & Sons Trading, complainant hasno objection in this regard and if the amount has been deposited in the accountof applicant Roopal, no suit for recovery has been filed by the complainant orby the representative or proprietor of M/s Mhaske & Sons Trading.

8. Further, contentions of Shri Veer Kumar Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant is that the complainant has lodged FIR beyond jurisdiction.The contract was executed with M/s Mhaske & Sons Trading. Meetings wereheld at Surat (Gujrat), the goods in question were purchased in Gujrat and also kept in the godown situated at Gujrat. It is prima facie case where the intentionof the complainant to entangle applicant into a false criminal case in order tocreate pressure on applicant and her family to extract money illegally.

9. In the FIR, it has been also alleged that when the complainant met withapplicant and her husband, the applicant and husband threatened thecomplainant, but regarding that incident, no complaint has ever been filed bycomplainant party.

10. The applicant has been arrested despite the fact that she has nothaving any connection with the complainant. Only on the basis of makingassurance, the applicant can't be implicated in this case or kept in jail forindefinite period. Learned Senior counsel has requested that the bail applicationbe allowed and applicant be released on bail.

11. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate and learnedcounsel for the objector have contended that the complainant Henna Dey,Manager of the Sky High Trade Links Pvt. Ltd. placed the order to supplycumin seeds with Mr. Prashant Mhaske, Proprietor and Mr. Vinay Kumar,representative of M/s Mhaske & Sons. Vinay Kumar has contracted withRoopal Mawani present applicant W/o Chetanbhai, who had to supply thecumin seeds at the rate of Rs.425/- per kg and Rs.395/- per kg respectively. Onsaid assurance, payment of Rs.1,06,71,000/- was transferred to the account ofM/s Mhaske & Sons trading on different dates between 20.05.2023 and12.07.2023, who further transferred amount of Rs.99,00,000/- in the account ofM/s Sonal Cultivation between 10.06.2023 to 12.07.2023, the same is wellestablished by the bank statement of the applicant itself. The applicant has notsupplied the goods and assured the complainant that the cumin seeds would besold at the rate of Rs.635/- per kg and Rs.680/- per kg in domestic market, value of which was around 2.5 crores. The complainant party agreed on thesuggestion made by the applicant, then the applicant informed the complainantcompany that the cumin seeds has been sold and amount would be transferredin the account of complainant's company soon.

12. So far as the question of contract between the complainant and M/sMhaske & Sons is concerned, if the contract was executed between thecomplainant and M/s Mhaske & Sons, then why the applicant has sent Rs.1/-for confirming the account and also sent bank statement, forged bills, bilty onwhatsapp chating.

1 3 . The complainant company was required to receive money ofRs.2,59,85,000/- from the present applicant in respect of the above transaction,the applicant sent a picture (annexure-A/4) to Mrs. Henna Dey via Whatsappshowing that she has initiated an RTGS transfer of Rs.15,00,000/- in the nameof Sky High Tradelinks. However, the same was never received by thecomplainant. The complainant time and again requested the applicant to depositthe amount and also went to Surat, where, the applicant made assurance fordepositing the payment by giving false promises as she was busy in functionand the goods were transported by the transport company Anki FreightTransport. Further, the applicant on 26.07.2023 by her mobile No. [REDACTED]sent a SMS (annexure-A/2) and PDF statement (annexure-A/3) via Whatsappregarding transaction to Mrs. Henna Dey, wherein it was shown that an amountof Rs.85,00,000/- have been transferred in the account of M/s Mhaske & Sons,whereas, no such amount was transferred.

14. It is further contended that the applicant has not deposited money inany of the account i.e. complaiant's company account or M/s Mhaske & Sons

company account and with intention to commit cheating made forgeddocuments, forge whatsapp messages regarding bank statement, forgedtransport bilty. When the complainant requested the applicant again and again,the applicant and her husband threatened her and said they are very influentialand powerful persons in Surat and no authority can harm them in any way. Acomplaint has also been made in Aurangabad, Gujrat against the presentapplicant.

15. In the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant, it issubmitted that the applicant has never intentend to deposit the money. Aftermuch efforts, the applicant Roopal Mavani was arrested on 29.10.2023 from aremote village of District Surendranagar, Gujrat which is around 350 km. fromher home in Surat, Gujrat.

16. So far as the forged documents are concerned, during investigationthe applicant submitted multiple forged documents including 3 promissorynotes, certificate of purchase, GST Bill and e-way bill of Ankit Freight Ways,having seal of M/s Mhaske & Sons trading. During investigation, the policerecorded the statements of owner of the transport company and his driver, fromthe statement of owner of the transport company Ankit Freight Ways, it isrevealed that no goods were transported or booked by the applicant in theaforesaid period and also from the perusal of the statement of driver of abovetransport company, it is disclosed that the truck bearing No. MP20EG3183 wasat another place for other work at the same time.

17. With regard to the jurisdiction of the case, the complainant companyhas received the order from Noor Al Hiba Trading, Dubai and further contractwas done between the complainant and applicant for which the applicant hasreceived of Rs.1/- in Indore (M.P.). That apart, forged whatsapp bank statements, forged transport bilty and GST Bills were also sent by applicant inIndore where the complainant resides, hence, it is crystal clear that the crimecan be registered in the jurisdiction of Indore City.

18. Learned counsel for the objector has placed reliance upon thejudgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prasanta KumarSarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496, wherein it is heldas under :- "We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearlyunsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally,interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting orrejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbentupon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously,cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laiddown in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It iswell settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to beborne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground tobelieve that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced;

and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

I t is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to theserelevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said orderwould suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it tobe illegal. In Masroor (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, of whichone of us (D.K. Jain, J.) was a member, observed as follows:

"Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborateexamination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the meritof the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided,but there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for primafacie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence."

19. Further, counsel for applicant has drawn attention of this Court in thecase of Naveen Kaamra Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2021 SCC OnLineMP 3898, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :- "9. On perusal of the case diary as well as documents available on record, it is apparent that the case is registeredunder Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC against the presentapplicant wherein, a huge amount has been involved andallegation is of using various forged documents, therefore,considering the nature and gravity of offence, this Court is notinclined to grant bail to the applicant."

2 0 . Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State alsocontended that the applicant is proclaimed offender, made forged bills of GST

and Transport, statements of ICICI Bank, hence, on the basis of law laid downby Hon'ble Apex Court and looking to the nature of offence and involvement ofhuge money in this case, the application of bail filed by the applicant deservesand is liable to be rejected. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the application.

21. I have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the record.

22. From the face of case diary, as per prosecution case, it is clear thatthe applicant and the complainant came into a contract for supplying the goodsin question and on that account, the applicant received of Rs.99,00,000/- butshe neither supplied the same nor returned the money. From the face of record,it emerged that the applicant has made forged documents of bank transactions,transport bilty, GST Bills. The statement of applicant on whatsapp chatting,shows her intention, hence, looking to the nature of the offence and facts thathuge amount of cheating is involved, without expressing any opinion on merits,in view of this Court, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

23. In view of the aforesaid principles of law and facts and circumstances of thecase, no case is made out to allow the application filed by the applicant, hencedismissed.

Vindesh

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)JUDGE