Court considers advanced age, clean record, and lack of direct communication with complainant as factors in granting bail.
In a significant development, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Prateek Jalan, has granted anticipatory bail to Ghisulal Jain, who was implicated in a case involving alleged criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406, 420, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case stems from FIR No. 128/2025, filed at the Tughlaq Road Police Station, New Delhi, following allegations of fraudulent inducement in a business venture related to Fienza Ceramics LLP.
The petitioner, Ghisulal Jain, sought relief under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after being accused of conspiring to dishonestly induce the complainant to part with money in exchange for a promised stake in the LLP. The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by Jain's advanced age, the absence of any prior criminal record, and the lack of direct communication between him and the complainant.
The alleged scheme involved several individuals, including Ashok Sharma and others, who were accused of luring the complainant into investing significant sums under the pretense of acquiring a partnership stake in the LLP. Despite Jain becoming a partner in the LLP only after the purported fraudulent transactions, he was implicated due to the reflection of the transferred amount as an "unsecured loan" in the financial statements of the LLP.
The court noted that the petitioner had joined the LLP after the period of the alleged offense and found no evidence of direct communication with the complainant. Additionally, it was observed that Jain had cooperated with the investigation and adhered to interim protection conditions previously granted by the court.
Addressing the allegations, the court highlighted the need for a trial to determine the liability and accounting practices related to the transactions. It cautioned against the misuse of criminal law for the recovery of money, especially in the absence of prima facie evidence against Jain. The court acknowledged the documentary nature of the evidence, Jain's cooperation, and his clean record as significant factors in its decision.
Justice Prateek Jalan underscored that the observations made in the bail proceedings should not affect the merits of the case at trial. The petitioner was granted bail on the condition that he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of the same amount and complies with several conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
The court's decision offers a reprieve to Jain, who had earlier faced rejection of his bail plea by the Sessions Court due to the serious nature of the allegations. This case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance courts must maintain between upholding justice and protecting individual liberties during the pendency of legal proceedings.
Bottom line:-
Anticipatory bail granted to petitioner, who was accused of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406/420/34 IPC, considering factors such as advanced age, clean record, absence of direct communication with complainant, and cooperation with investigation.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 406, 420, 34
Ghisulal Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2901940
