Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tanya Arora vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4003
1 MCRC-1731-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 14th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1731 of 2025
TANYA ARORA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Mohammad Ibrahim - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
Shri Narayan Tiwari - Advocate for objector.
ORDER
This first bail application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 438 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed
by the applicants No.1 and 2 Tanya Arora D/o Jagjiv Kumar Arora and
Anjali Arora W/o Sahil Arora for grant of anticipatory bail, who are
apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.535/2024 registered
at Police Station Bhawarkua, District Indore (M.P.) for commission of
offences under Section 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
2. As per prosecution case, the allegation against the applicants and
co-accused are that they have committed cheating by forging swift receipts
showing amount of only USD 60,000/- in place of USD 75,000/-.
Accordingly, offence has been registered against them.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4003
2 MCRC-1731-2025
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that they are innocent and
have falsely been implicated in the crime. There is no sufficient evidence
available on record to establish the complicity of the accused with the
alleged crime. Even though the applicants are the Directors in M/s. Super E
Factory Depot Pvt. Ltd., having its website as www.tradologie.com, which is
a trading platform for sellers and buyers for international trading. They have
not been attributed any role in commission of any offence. They cannot be
roped in just because they are the Directors in the accused Company. For this
he has relied upon the judgment by the apex Court on para Nos.7 and 9 to 13
in the case of Susela Padmavathy Amma Vs. M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited
reported in (2024) 3 SCR 647 . Learned counsel further submits that as per
the allegations in the FIR offences, if any, have been committed that is
attributed to co-accused Sahil Arora. To buttress his point, learned counsel
has also referred declaration at page 29 from Vivek Trading Company. He
has further referred order by the Arbitrator specifically para 55 to 57 and
submits that in arbitration proceedings even the disputed amount of USD
75000 has not been ordered to be remitted back to the complainant. There is
no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with evidence. They will
cooperate with the investigation. On these contentions, learned counsel prays
for allowing the application for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the objector vehemently opposed the
prayer by referring the documents Annex.-O/1 and Annex.-O/2 that swift
receipts have been forged. He further submits that even though no direct
involvement of applicants has been alleged in the FIR, but investigation is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4003
3 MCRC-1731-2025
going and Directors cannot be absolved from the liability. Section 61(2) of
BNS, 2023 (equivalent to Section 120-B of IPC) will come into play.
Learned counsel elaborately referring e-mail (Annex.-O/1) pointed out that
offence has been committed by the applicants. On these submissions, he
prays for dismissing the anticipatory bail application.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent / State has also vehemently
opposed the prayer and prays for dismissal of the bail application on the
ground that role of the company of the applicant is scandalizing the image of
India on international level in the field of import and export, hence, they are
not entitle for anticipatory bail.
6. In reply to the objections by learned counsel for the objector and
State, learned counsel for the applicants submits that no criminal antecedents
have been attributed to the applicants. They are merely Directors and no
specific role played by them in committing the offence. Hence, urges the
Court for allowing the anticipatory bail application as prayed for.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties with the aid of case diary and
perused the record.
8. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, when in FIR no specific role has
been attributed to the applicants for commission of offence; they are having
no criminal antecedents; and arbitration proceedings are going on, this Court
is inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly,
without commenting on the merits of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
9. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants shall be released
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4003
4 MCRC-1731-2025
on bail upon their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) each with separate solvent sureties in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the officer making arrest/Trial Court, for
compliance with the following conditions:
(i) Applicants shall make themselves available for investigation as
may be directed and will abide by the command of the Investigating Officer;
(ii) Applicants shall not commit or get involved in any offence of
similar nature;
(iii) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade them/him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the
police officer;
(iv) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly attempt to tamper with
the evidence or allure, pressurize or threaten the witness; and
(v) During trial, the applicants shall ensure due compliance of
provisions of Section 309 of Cr.P.C/346 of the BNSS. regarding examination
of witnesses in attendance.
10. This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in
case of bail jump and / or breach of any of the conditions of bail, this order
will come to an end and applicants will be liable to be arrested by the
concerned authorities.
11. The trial Court shall get these conditions reproduced on the
personal bond by the accused and on surety bond by the surety concerned. If
any of them is unable to write, the scribe shall certify that he had explained
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4003
5 MCRC-1731-2025
the conditions to the concerned accused or the surety.
12. Accordingly, this M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Tej
