Supreme Court reverses Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh's bail rejection order

In Sunil Dhanwat @ Atharva Sunil Dhanwat @Sunil Pandurang Dhanwat vs, The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and N.V. Anjaria passed a 2-page long order dated July 25, 2025 granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The order reads: "Considering the nature of the case, we are of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this case, however, this will be subject to the total cooperation of the petitioner in the ongoing investigations. Consequently, we allow the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and make the order dated 09.05.2025 as absolute. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail forthwith on the usual terms and conditions to be decided by the concerned Court." 

The petition was disposed of. The arose out of a 3-page long order dated March 24, 2025 passed by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of the Patna High Court in Sunil Dhanwat @ Atharva Sunil Dhanwat @Sunil Pandurang Dhanwat vs, The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025). 

Justice Singh had dismissed the petition for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner because of the gravity of the facts and circumstances of the case.

The petitioner was an accused in a complaint case of 2024, for the offences punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. He apprehended his arrest and his anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the High Court under the order impugned. Being aggrieved, he had approached the Supreme Court and vide order dated May 9, 2025, the Court while issuing notice, granted interim protection to the petitioner subject to cooperation in the  investigation.  

The prosecution case was that petitioner being the Proprietor-cum-Director of Spekans EPC Pvt. Ltd., Pune engaged the complainant for a project related to structure fabrication at a site in Surat (Gujarat). The complainant alleged that he invested Rs. 50,85,656/- in the said project, whereas petitioner made a payment of Rs. 23,38,000/-via RTGS, leaving outstanding amount of Rs. 27,47,656/-. It was also alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs. 17,47,656/-, which bounced due to insufficiency of fund.

The complainant's counsel had opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail in the High Court. He had submitted that petitioner did not deny the allegation made in the complaint petition and the cheque issued by the petitioner bounced due to insufficiency of fund. In this case, petitioner neither appeared nor surrendered before the Court and as such, he was declared absconder and process of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated against him to ensure his appearance in the Court. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. He relied on the following decisions in support of this submission: (i) Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730 (ii) State of MP vs. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 17 and (iii) Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955.

The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7940 of 2023.

Justice Singh's order reads: "It is a case of ‘cheque bounce’. The cheque, issued by the petitioner, got bounced due to insufficiency of fund. In this case, process of Section 82 Cr.P.C. has already been initiated on 12.12.2024 and as such, petitioner is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case and gravity of the offence, the petition for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner is dismissed." Reversing, Justice Singh's order, the Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner by making its order dated May 9, 2025 as absolute. By its earlier, the Court had granted interim protection to the petitioner. 

 

Police and judicial officers need training in law to understand distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating: Supreme Court

In Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,  Supreme Court's Division bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra pointed out the the fine distinction between the offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust. It observed: "Both offences are independent and distinct. The two offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts. They are antithetical to each other. The two provisions of the IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other." The Court set aside orders of Allahabad High Court and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahar taking cognizance upon the complaint dated April 3, 2024 and February 28, 2023 respectively. Supreme Court's judgement was delivered on August 23, 2024. It was authored by Justice Pardiwala. 

The case in question pertained to one unpaid seller. It is the case of the complainant that he used to regularly supply consignments of grains & oats meant for horses at the Delhi Race Club. The complainant used to raise invoices in favour of the Club and the Club used to pay the requisite amount. However, according to the complainant after 2017, the Club stopped making the payment. It is the case of the complainant that an amount of Rs. 9,11,434/- is due and payable by the appellants towards the supply of the consignment of oats.

The Court observed:"The impugned order passed by the High Court is a fine specimen of total non- application of mind. Although the complaint was filed for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B respectively of the IPC yet the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate thought fit to take cognizance and issue process only for the offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of the IPC and made punishable under Section 406 of the IPC. We are of the view that even if the entire case of the complainant is accepted as true no offence worth the name is disclosed." 

The Court drew on its decision in S.W. Palanitkar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2002) 1 SCC 241 expounded the difference in the ingredients required for constituting an of offence of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) viz-a-viz the offence of cheating (Section 420).

In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC): -
1) There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property, and
2) The person entrusted: -
a) dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, or
b) dishonestly used or disposed of the property or willfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of:
i. any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged; or
ii. legal contract touching the discharge of trust (see: S.W.P. Palanitkar (supra).
Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are: -
1) deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission;
2) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or
3) the consent that any persons shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit (see: Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 712 : (2009) Cr.L.J. 3462 (SC))

The judgement concluded:"We direct the Registry to send one copy each of this judgment to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, Union of India and also to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Union of India." It underlined the need of proper training of police and judicial officers so that they understand the distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating.