Appreciation of Evidence & Grounds of Bail in a Cheating Case
Appreciation of Evidence and the grounds to obtain bail upon being falsely implicated under any of the provisions for cheating, thereof. Section 421 – 424 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 deals with Fraud. These sections are apprised hereinbelow:
Section 421: Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently removes, conceals, delivers or transfer any property without adequate consideration and with intention to deprive his creditors to levy legal debt from him, shall be penalised with imprisonment upto 2 years, or liable for fine, or with both.
Section 422: Any person who dishonestly or fraudulently prevent any demand or debt being due to himself, or to any other person as per laws, to evade payment of debt to other creditor, shall be penalized with imprisonment upto 2 years, or liable for fine, or with both.
Section 423: Any person who dishonestly or fraudulently signs or executes a deed of transfer or becomes party to any deed or instrument which purports to transfer or subject to any charge on any property, or any interest therein, and which contains any false statement regarding the consideration for such charge or transfer, or relating to the person or persons for whose use or benefit it is really intended to operate, shall be penalized with imprisonment upto 2 years, or liable for fine, or with both.
Section 424: Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently removes, conceals any property that belongs to him or any other person or such person assist any other person, shall be
penalised with imprisonment upto 2 years, or liable for fine, or with both.
How does nature of the Evidence accumulated in a case could play eminent role in getting Bail?
The Court may grant bail to the accused upon finding no prima facie evidence of the commission of the alleged offence.
In the case of Ismail Siddiqbhai Shaikh v. State of Gujarat [Cri (Misc) A No. 3058/ 2009], the applicant-accused was present when the agreement for the sale of the truck entered and thereafter when it was dismantled by the co-accused in the presence of the applicant. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat observed that the applicant was merely present at the time of agreement and dismantling and there is no other evidence to support the allegations against the applicant. Therefore, the applicant cannot be said to be an accomplice. Moreover, there are no criminal antecedents against him. Therefore, the Hon’ble Court granted bail to the applicant.
In the case of Abbas v. State of Kerala [B. A. No. 247/ 2015], a property was purchased by Muhamad Ali. Later, upon death of Muhammad, his legal heirs, who are accused no. 1-9, conspired to create fake documents in respect of the property so that sale of the property once again could be made for undue enrichment and wrongful gain. Allegations have been made that a sale deed have been executed in respect of the said property once again in favour of accused nos. 11 and 10, who thereafter furnished the said property as security before the Kuttipuram Service Cooperative Bank and took a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the said Bank, thereby cheated and defrauded the said Bank. The allegations against the petitioners is that they are document writers and they have knowingly helped the other accused to execute the aforesaid false documents. After that, the accused was booked under sections 424, 468 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala upon examining the facts and circumstances of this case and due to the weak nature of evidence against the accused, anticipatory bail of the accused was allowed.
In the case of Jitendra Prasad Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar [Cri Misc No. 43496/ 2015], the informant filed a complaint petition on the basis of which the present F.I.R. was lodged. The informant alleged in his complaint petition that his brother was sowing paddy in field when Jitendra Prasad Singh and few other persons objected and revealed that they had purchased the land from Munmun Prasad Shrivastava and Binay Kumar Sinha. Binay Kumar Sinha and Munmun Prasad Shrivastava were brothers of Tarini Prasad Shrivastava. Tarini Prasad Shrivastava filed Partition Suit. The informant is son of Tarini Prasad Shrivastava. Munmun Prasad Shrivastava and Binay Kumar Sinha sold the lands of their shares. The petitioners are the bona fide purchasers of the owners of the land. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held that Binay Kumar Sinha and Munmun Prasad Shrivastava are the co-sharers of the father of the informant and a partition suit is also pending on between the petitioners, afore named, in the event of their surrender or arrest before the court below within 4 weeks from the date of receipt or production of a copy of the order, are directed to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Nature of evidence is very effective ground for bail and this thing must be clear after perusing aforementioned fact and case laws. This ground is used in maximum number of cases.
Authored By: Adv. Anant Sharma & Satwik Sharma