CHARANJEET SINGH SAINI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. His first bail application was rejected vide order dated 13.10.2014. Thereafter, charge sheet has been filed and now, in these circumstances, another application for grant of bail has been filed.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant and other co -accused persons fraudulently obtained supply of huge quantity of raw -material used for re -rolling TMT bars. It is alleged that the applicant along with other co -accused with fraudulent intention to cheat, induced suppliers to supply raw -material giving cheques for payment against such supply, which later on, bounced. It is the case of the prosecution that in this manner, as many as 24 suppliers of raw -materials were cheated involving approximately Rs.29 crores.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for the applicant argued that earlier the application for grant of bail was rejected as the investigation was pending. Now charge sheet has been filed. It is submitted that the entire case of the prosecution, as made out from the charge sheet, does not make out a prima facie case of cheating or breach of trust. He further submits that allegation that the applicant forged invoices in order to seek re -assessment of their income is also not made out because the re -assessment proceedings have been drawn by the competent authority of the Income Tax Department and at the stage, police cannot say that those records, on the basis of which re -assessment has been done, are forged or fabricated, because it is a case of re -assessment and not a case of forgery. With reference to material placed on record, it is further argued that the applicant is engaged in manufacturing activity of re -rolling and for that purpose he had been purchasing raw -material from various suppliers since 2004. The applicant's business started running into losses due to recession in the market because of which the applicant suffered severe financial crisis and this resulted in default of payments to various suppliers against supply of raw -materials supplied to it from time to time. Learned senior counsel further argued that the post dated cheques were issued in - a bonafide manner, but as the amount was insufficient in the accounts, the cheques bounced for which various cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have been filed against the applicant. He further argued that from time to time, the applicant has been making payments to all the complainants, 24 in numbers, and even though full payment has not been made, payment in parts have been made from time to time up to year 2011. He further submits that even after lodging of FIR and registration of criminal case, with the intervention of the Association of Suppliers, a substantial amount of more than 10 crores has been paid to various suppliers by now. It is, therefore, submitted that it is not a case of any fraudulent intention from the inception of transaction, but it is only a case of non -payment of -balance amount due to reasons beyond the control of the applicant. It is lastly submitted that looking to the voluminous records of the charge sheet running in four thousands pages and that prosecution intends to examine more than 100 prosecution witnesses, the trial itself is not likely to be concluded early.