The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, on June 9, 2025, granted anticipatory bail to Tejas Lalit Soni, a diamond merchant, in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust. The ruling, delivered by Justice Milind N. Jadhav, emphasizes the importance of cooperation with investigating authorities while protecting individual liberty in cases involving complex financial transactions.
The case stems from FIR No. 1448 of 2024, registered with Amboli Police Station, accusing Soni and his father of offenses under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act).
The complainant, a diamond trader, alleged that he had invested a total of Rs. 5.50 Crore with Soni and his father, who were involved in diamond trading and manufacturing. The complainant claimed that monthly payments were initially made as promised, but ceased after February 2024. He accused Soni of inducing him to invest with promises of high returns, misrepresenting that the funds would be used for legitimate diamond business, when in fact, they were allegedly diverted.
Arguments Presented:
Saurabh Ghag, counsel for the applicant (Soni), argued that the FIR primarily focused on the recovery of money and that the allegations did not definitively establish a criminal offense of cheating. He highlighted that the applicant was a commission agent and that the transactions were part of a legitimate business relationship between diamond traders. Ghag pointed out that the complainant had also engaged in similar transactions with other traders, which were not part of the FIR.
Shilpa K. Gajare-Dhumal, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Prashant Malik, counsel for the complainant/intervener, opposed the anticipatory bail. They contended that the applicant had induced the complainant to invest, subsequently diverting the funds and refusing to return the principal amount or profits. They emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, particularly under the MPID Act, which deals with fraudulent financial schemes.
Court's Observations:
Justice Jadhav carefully considered the submissions and the nature of the allegations. The Court observed that the transactions between the parties appeared to be in the nature of business dealings between diamond traders. While acknowledging the complainant's claims of being duped, the Court noted that a prior civil suit had also been filed between the parties, and the current FIR seemed to be "an offshoot" of that civil dispute.
A crucial aspect considered by the Court was the ongoing investigation. The police had seized the applicant's mobile phone, and bank statements were being scrutinized. The Court acknowledged that the allegations involved significant financial transactions and that a thorough investigation was necessary to determine the criminal intent, if any.
Conditions for Anticipatory Bail:
Ultimately, the High Court decided to grant anticipatory bail to Tejas Lalit Soni, subject to stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent tampering with evidence.
The key conditions imposed are:
Bail Bond: The applicant must furnish a Personal Recognizance bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or more solvent sureties of the like amount.
Cooperation: Soni must report to the Investigating Officer (IO) at Amboli Police Station daily for three weeks (except Sundays), between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon, starting from June 10, 2025. He must provide all relevant details and documents as and when called for by the IO.
Document Submission: Soni is directed to submit his income tax statements, bank transaction records from the date of entering the Sole Selling Distribution Agreement, and details of his stock register relevant to the dispute to the IO for investigation.
No Tampering: Soni is prohibited from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Address and Contact Details: He must provide his current residential and office addresses and mobile numbers to the IO and update them immediately if changed.
No Offenses: He must not indulge in any similar criminal offenses while on bail.
The Court emphasized that any infraction of these conditions would lead to the cancellation of the anticipatory bail order.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's approach in balancing the rights of the accused with the need for effective investigation, particularly in complex cases involving financial disputes that may have both civil and criminal dimensions.
Section 34., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 406., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 420., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Indian Penal Code, 1860
