Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5610
1 MCRC-6006-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6006 of 2025
SANTOSH AGRAWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Upendra Yadav - Advocate for applicant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla- Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C/482 of B.N.S.S.,
2023, has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. Applicant apprehends his arrest by Police Station Kotwali, District
Gwalior in connection with Complaint Case No.3879/2024 RCT for offences
under Sections 420, 409/34 and 120B of IPC.
3. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that even if the entire
allegations are accepted, then it is clear that it is a commercial transaction. It
is alleged that applicant is working as a commission agent and if sugar was
not supplied by the supplier, then applicant cannot be made vicariously liable
for the same. It is further submitted that this Court by order dated 25.11.2024
passed in M.Cr.C. No.42868/2024 (Ankit Agrawal Vs. Hariom Bansal and
others) has granted anticipatory bail to the co-accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5610
2 MCRC-6006-2025
4. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for
respondent No.1/State as well as respondent No.2/complainant. It is
submitted by counsel for complainant that complainant had purchased sugar
from M/s DCM Shriram Limited, Sugar Unit Roopapur. Complainant had
deposited an amount of Rs.9,92,565/- in the account of M/s DCM Shriram
Limited, Sugar Unit Roopapur for purchase of 300 bags of sugar, out of
which 145 quintals of sugar has been received but 155 quintals of sugar is
yet to be received. Thus, it is alleged that applicant who is the commission
agent has committed fraud and cheated the complainant.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is well established principle of law that any attempt to convert
the commercial transaction into a criminal case has to be deprecated. It is a
pure case of breach of contract. If complainant had entered into an agreement
to purchase sugar from M/s DCM Shriram Limited, Sugar Unit Roopapur
and if entire sugar has not been supplied, then in absence of any ingredient to
show that the intention of accused persons right from the day one was to
cheat complainant, it cannot be said that the case in hand is not of purely civil
in nature. Furthermore, the criminal proceedings cannot be instituted with
solitary intention to recover the amount. The conduct of complainant was
also considered by this court while deciding the bail application (M.Cr.C.
No.42868/2024) of co-accused Ankit Agrawal.
7. As there is no allegation that applicant has misappropriated sugar
which was to be supplied by M/s DCM Shriram Limited, Sugar Unit
Roopapur, accordingly, application for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:5610
3 MCRC-6006-2025
and it is directed that in case applicant appears before the Trial Court on or
before 18/03/2025 and furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lac Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court, then he shall be released on anticipatory bail.
8. It is made clear that in case applicant fails to appear before the Trial
Court on or before 18/03/2025, then this order shall automatically stand
cancelled.
9. In the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of
XYZ & Others Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in (2021) 16 SCC
179 , intimation regarding grant of bail be sent to the complainant.
Certified copy as per rules.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
pd
