The denial of anticipatory bail does not constitute a criminal breach of trust when the underlying dispute is civil in nature.

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants are husband and wife respectively.

3. They are denied anticipatory bail by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in connection with the First Information Report No.413/2024 registered at Police Station Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh for the offence punishable under Sections 420 , 406 and 120B respectively of the Indian Penal Code .

4. Heard Mr. Vijay K., the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Diyank Panwar, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan.

5. The plain reading of the First Information Report would Signaituren Nodt Veirificedate that the complainant is an unpaid seller. He sold goods to Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2025.08.14

19:57:t32 hISTe appellants for a particular amount. It is the case of the Reason:

complainant that a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- came to be paid by the appellants towards sale of ply-wood. However, the appellants thereafter failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.12,59,393/-. In such circumstances, the complainant thought fit to go to the Police Station and lodge a First Information Report for the offence of cheating, criminal breach of trust including criminal conspiracy.

6. It is too obvious that the only submission that could have been canvassed on behalf of the appellants before the High Court would be that it is a pure case of civil dispute and there is no element of cheating or criminal breach of trust involved in the transaction. There is no question of criminal breach of trust once there is a sale transaction. This is a settled position of law.

Therefore, the only offence left is cheating.

7. We are disappointed to take note of what was submitted by the Public Prosecutor before the High Court. This is what the High Court has recorded in its impugned order:-

“Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that since there is a stay on the arrest of both the accused – petitioners, recovery of Rs.12,59,393/- could not be effected and is yet to be made from the petitioners.

From the investigation done so far, offence under Section 420 IPC is prima facie found to be made against these petitioners.

If indulgence of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, then the recovery of the said amount may not be effected.”

8. What we have understood from the aforesaid is that according to the State, Police machinery is required for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount. The High Court very willingly accepted such submission canvassed on behalf of the State. We need not say anything further in the matter. Ordinarily, while granting bail, we do not set aside the orders passed by the High Courts denying bail but this is one order, we deem it apposite to set aside.

9. In the result, these appeals are allowed.

10. It is ordered that in the event of both the appellants being arrested by the Investigating Officer, they shall be released on bail, subject to terms and conditions that the Investigating Officer may deem fit to impose. Once they are released on bail by the IO, they shall thereafter appear before the Court concerned and furnish fresh bail bonds.

…………………………………………J (J.B. PARDIWALA)

…………………………………………J (R. MAHADEVAN)

NEW DELHI

13TH AUGUST, 2025.

va ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-D S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8820/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-04-2025 in SBCRMBA No. 10291/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur]

NEHA SIYAL Petitioner(s)

VERSUS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent(s)

(IA No. 142931/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

WITH SLP(Crl) No. 9326/2025 (II-D)

(FOR ADMISSION)

Date : 13-08-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'