Bail in alleged demonetised currency exchange case where voluntary participation and lack of prima facie dishonest intent were shown

Allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust arising from an attempted exchange of demonetised currency did not, on the prima facie record, show inducement, dishonest intention, or misappropriation by the accused. The material indicated that the informant and her associate voluntarily joined an unlawful transaction and were in pari delicto, so the collapse of that transaction did not itself establish the offences alleged. As the accused had been in custody for a substantial period, had no criminal antecedents, and posed no apparent risk to investigation or justice, bail was granted on conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a case alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust and allied offences arising out of an alleged exchange of demonetised currency notes.

Analysis: The FIR and accompanying record did not prima facie show that the applicant had induced the informant to part with money or had the intention to deceive her. The material indicated that the informant and her associate voluntarily parted with money for an illegal purpose, namely exchange of demonetised notes on commission, and the parties were in pari delicto. On those facts, the failure to complete an unlawful transaction did not, at this stage, disclose cheating or misappropriation against the applicant. The applicant was in custody for a substantial period, his presence was no longer required for investigation, he had no criminal antecedents, and there was no apparent risk of absconding or obstructing justice.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the applicant on conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the allegations disclose that parties voluntarily participated in an unlawful transaction and the record does not prima facie show inducement or dishonest intention by the accused, continued custody is not justified and bail may be granted.

---