TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court grants anticipatory bail in cheque misuse case under IPC 420/34 despite State opposition</h1> <h3>Gurumukh Singh S/o Shri Gurucharan Singh Versus State of Chhattisgarh</h3> Gurumukh Singh S/o Shri Gurucharan Singh Versus State of Chhattisgarh - TMI Issues:Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC for the offence under Section 420/34 of IPC based on allegations of cheque misuse and non-payment.Analysis:The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC due to the fear of arrest in connection with a case registered under Crime No. 278/2017 for the offence under Section 420/34 of IPC. The prosecution's case revolved around allegations made by Suryakant Tiwari, Director of M/s Ganga Construction, who claimed that the applicant, along with others, misused cheques handed over to a contractor, leading to the filing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The applicant, represented by Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, argued that he was a material supplier to Ganga Construction and had issued a cheque for the material supplied, which was dishonored, leading to the complaint. The applicant contended that the complaint was filed with ill motives to pressurize him, and he had not committed any offence as alleged.The State counsel, Mr. B.L. Sahu, opposed the bail application, alleging that the applicant misused the cheques with two other co-accused individuals. It was argued that the applicant had approached the court for anticipatory bail only in 2021, despite the FIR being lodged in 2017, indicating a lack of entitlement to relief under Section 438 of CrPC. However, there was no mention of any police action against the applicant until 2021 in the case diary.After hearing both parties, the court considered the nature of allegations, the bills for material supply submitted by the applicant, and the withdrawal of proceedings by a co-accused due to a settlement with the complainant. The court, without commenting on the case's merits, granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. The conditions imposed included making himself available for interrogation, refraining from influencing witnesses, ensuring a fair trial, and appearing before the trial court as required.In conclusion, the court allowed the application for anticipatory bail, directing the applicant's release upon arrest in connection with the case, subject to the specified conditions to ensure compliance and fair trial proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
