1 2025:CGHC:44989 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1330 of 2025 Rounak Jaiswal S/o Shri Rajen Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 37 Years Proprietor, Indo German Bearing Company, Resident of 16 Ramkanta Mistry Lane, Bowbazar, Kolkata 700012, West Bengal ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Dabhra (Chowki Faguram), District Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 03.09.2025 1. This is the second anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail by the applicant apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 425/2024, registered at Police Station – Dabhra, District – Sakti (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). 2. The earlier anticipatory bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn, as some other offences were added during the course of ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.04 14:47:27 +0530 2 investigation, vide order dated 18.08.2025, passed in MCRCA No. 1232 of 2025 by this Court. 3. The case of prosecution is that the complainant lodged an FIR against the applicant at the instance of RKM Powergen Ltd., alleging that the applicant, on the basis of a forged e-mail certificate, declared himself to be the Authorized Distributor of SKF Bearing Company. Relying upon this representation, the complainant entered into an Annual Rate Contract on 04.03.2022 for a period of one year and placed supply orders for 1,422 bearings worth Rs. 1,67,63,603/-, out of which 691 bearings have already been used by the complainant and 731 bearings, worth Rs. 86,33,361/-, are still lying in the plant. It is alleged that the applicant supplied counterfeit products while misrepresenting them to be genuine SKF Bearings, thereby cheating the complainant. The complainant subsequently had the stock verified and inspected by a Customer Support Engineer of SKF Bearing Company, who declared the certificate submitted by the applicant to be forged and further confirmed that the stock retained in the complainant’s factory godown was counterfeit. Out of this, 531 bearings in the stock of the complainant’s factory were found to be counterfeit. Thus, it is alleged that the applicant cheated the complainant company. It is further pertinent to mention that the order rejecting bail records that, as per the Case Diary, the police have also added offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, though the same were not mentioned in the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second anticipatory bail application for the present applicants. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn, as some other offences were added during the course of investigation by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2025. He further submits that the complainant and the applicant 3 entered into an Annual Rate Contract on 04.03.2022 for supply of bearings of SKF Bearing Company for a period of one year. There existed a commercial relationship of sale of goods between the complainant and the applicant under the said Annual Rate Contract. The applicant duly supplied the goods as per the various purchase orders, and the complainant used and consumed the goods during the entire tenure of the contract without raising any objection. It is pertinent to note that the Annual Rate Contract was never cancelled by the complainant. It is significant to mention that the Annual Rate Contract contained an arbitration clause (Clause 16) which specifically provided that in case of any dispute between the parties, the same shall be resolved through arbitration at Chennai. Therefore, the proper remedy for the complainant was to invoke arbitration proceedings. Instead, with mala fide intent to circumvent the contractual mechanism, the complainant has given a false complaint against the applicant, giving a colour of criminality to a purely civil dispute and thereby misusing the process of law. He also submits that in January 2023, the Manager of the complainant company, namely Rajat Chakraborty (Purchase Department), demanded 5% of the contract value as commission from the applicant, failing which he threatened that a false complaint would be lodged alleging supply of counterfeit products and criminal proceedings would be initiated. Accordingly, the Sales Manager of the applicant lodged a written complaint on 31.01.2023 before Police Station Chowki Faguram, District Sakti. The said complaint, however, was closed by the police under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. with advice to approach the competent Court. He submits that thereafter, on 30.03.2023, i.e., just one day before the expiry of the Annual Rate Contract, the complainant again lodged a complaint before Police Station Faguram, District Sakti, alleging supply of counterfeit 4 products by the applicant. Even on this complaint, the police again closed the matter under Section 155 Cr.P.C., advising the complainant to approach the competent Court since the dispute pertained to commercial transactions relating to sale and purchase of goods. He submits that the applicant had supplied goods worth Rs. 1,93,81,229/- to the complainant, against which a sum of Rs. 15,30,270/- still remains outstanding and payable by the complainant. This fact is evident from the ledger account maintained by the applicant. He also submits that after the complainant started making baseless allegations regarding inferior quality goods, the applicant categorically objected to such allegations. The applicant further objected to the so-called inspection allegedly conducted by the complainant, as no prior notice was given and no representative of the applicant was present at the time of such inspection. The allegations regarding supply of inferior or counterfeit goods are wholly false. It is significant to note that the complainant had already consumed a substantial portion of the supplied goods and raised the dispute only at the fag end of the contract. The instant FIR was registered more than one year and seven months later, on the very same allegations on which the police had earlier closed the matter under Section 155 Cr.P.C. This clearly shows that the FIR is nothing but an afterthought and has been lodged only to exert pressure on the applicant and to avoid making payment of outstanding dues, therefore, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel for the non-applicant/State would oppose the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended in the present anticipatory bail application. 5 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, it appears that the instant FIR was registered more than one year and seven months later, further, the present case is related to a commercial dispute, therefore, without further consideration of the merits, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Rounak Jaiswal on executing a personal bond and one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Abhishek