The court determined that the absence of dishonest intent in financial transactions favors bail eligibility under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Jha on behalf of the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Niraj Sharma or the respondent-State.

2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. The present applicant who has been arraigned as an accused has preferred this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191035250789 of 2025 registered with Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 318 (4) and 54 the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 before filing of the charge-sheet.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Jha would submit that the allegations against the applicant being that the applicant had sought for finance from the complainant more particularly on the pretext that the applicant is a Director of a company which is engaged in getting contracts from the government agencies. It is also alleged that the applicant had been paid a total of Rs.27,34,000/- by the complainant and whereas it is submitted that while an amount of Rs. 26,500/- has been returned back, neither the principal amount was being returned nor the complainant was made a partner in the company. Learned Advocate would submit that the entire issue is of a monetary transaction. It is further submitted that the allegation levelled in the FIR does not reflect any dishonest intent on part of the applicant from the inception of the transaction. Thus submitting learned Advocate would request that the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail.

5. Learned APP Mr. Sharma would vehemently oppose the present application submitting that the applicant had induced the complainant in lending money more particularly under the pretext that the applicant would either make the complainant a partner in his business or give huge profit. It is submitted that the present is a clear case of cheating and whereas it is submitted that since the charge-sheet has not been filed and that the present applicant has one antecedent against him, this Court may not interfere at this stage.

6. This Court has heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the FIR as well as passed by learned Session Court as well as affidavit filed by the investigating officer before the learned Trial Court.

7. This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40

8. This Court has also considered the following aspects:

(i) The fact that the present appearing to be a financial transaction between the complainant and the present applicant- main accused.

(ii) The fact of the complaint itself mentioning that the applicant was neither paying the amount nor making the complainant a partner in his business i.e. to mean that the issue was with regard to a commercial transaction between the parties, (iii) That the applicant had paid a some amount - a paltry amount to the complainant out of the entire amount which had been lent by the complainant, yet the same may have a bearing on the issue of dishonest intention.

(iv) The fact of the complainant joining the wife and daughter of the applicant as accused, more particularly without any specific role having been attributed to the said accused.

(v) The fact of there being an antecedent but not something which could be co-relatable to the offence alleged to have been committed as far as the present FIR is concerned.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that thi