Court held that business disputes without mens rea do not constitute a criminal offense under IPC, allowing bail for the applicant.

Order on Board

24/07/2025

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 114/2024 registered at Police Station Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Dinesh Kumar Markam, lodged a written complaint alleging that the applicant purchased maize (corn) from him and approximately 35 other tribal farmers with a promise to pay a rate higher than the prevailing market rate. However, despite repeated demands, the applicant allegedly evaded and delayed payments, thereby committing the alleged offense. Pursuant to the complaint, the police registered an FIR, arrested the applicant, and subsequently filed a charge sheet before the competent court of law. Hence, the bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to business-related disputes stemming from delayed payments, which are civil in nature. These disputes have been maliciously given a criminal color with ulterior motives. Moreover, the dispute, if any, relates to an alleged failure to make payments in a commercial transaction involving the purchase of maize, which at best gives rise to a civil liability and does not constitute a criminal offense punishable under the Indian Penal Code . He further submits that mens rea is lacking in the present case, and there is no cogent evidence to suggest that the applicant had any fraudulent intention at the time of entering into the transaction. Since no recovery is to be made from the applicant and all relevant documentary evidence is already in the possession of the Investigating OfÏcer, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not warranted. The applicant is in jail since 03.12.2024, the applicant has two criminal antecedents of the years 2022 & 2024 under the IPC, further charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is alleged to have committed fraud with the complainant and other farmers, he allegedly purchased maize (corn) from them with a promise to pay a rate higher than the prevailing market rate, despite repeated demands, the applicant evaded and delayed payments, further the applicant has three criminal antecedents of identical nature, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. From perusal of the case diary, it prima facie appears that the applicant is alleged to have committed fraud with the complainant and other farmers, he allegedly purchased maize (corn) from them with a promise to pay a rate higher than the prevailing market rate, despite repeated demands, the applicant evaded and delayed payments, so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, applicant has three criminal antecedents of identical nature, but considering the period of detention of the applicant since 03.12.2024 and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

7. Let the Applicant-Shersingh Sethiya, involved in Crime No.

114/2024 registered at Police Station Farasgaon, District K