24.09.2026 Item No. 16 Court No. 446 (Allowed) C. R. M. (A) 2180 of 2026 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Contai Police Station Case No. 201/2025 dated 27.03.2025 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/336(2)/338/340(2)/61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 along with subsequently added Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (G.R. Case No. 677 of 2025). And In Re: Trilok Hasmukh Joshi. … … Petitioner Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajdeep Banerjee, Mr. Md. Zohaib Rauf, Mr. Shreyan Bose. … for the petitioner Mr. Parmanand Sharma, Mr. Narattam Acharyya. … for the State Mr. Arindam Sen, Mr. Mrityunjay Chatterjee, Mr. Saikat Chatterjee, Mr. Saurav Basu, Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Mr. A. Sohel, Mr. R. Pramanik, Mr. S. Biswas. …for the de-facto complainant 1. The instant application has been presented under Section 482 of BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Contai P.S. Case No. 201 of 2025 dated 27th March, 2025 under Sections 316(2)/ 318(4)/ 336(2)/ 338/ 340(2)/ 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 677 of 2025 presently pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Contai, Purba Medinipur. 2. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the present case is essentially a civil dispute 2 which has been given the colour of a criminal case with a view to setting the criminal law in motion and utilising the machinery of investigation for recovery of the amount allegedly due under a commercial transaction. 3. He submits that the petitioner is a Director of M/s TDA Import and Export Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “TDA”), a company engaged in the business of importing raw cashew nuts from Nigeria, Ivory Coast and Tanzania and supplying the same to various buyers whereas the complainant, namely, Md. Abu Tofayel is a partner of a firm, namely, Sattar Exim LLP (hereinafter referred to Sattar Exim). In the FIR, it was alleged that TDA and Sattar Exim entered into three contracts, namely, the Ivory Coast Contract dated 21st October, 2024, the Tanzania Contract dated 28th October, 2024 and the Ogbomoso Contract dated 29th October, 2024, pursuant to which TDA undertook to supply approximately 1,900 metric tons of cashew nuts to Sattar. In terms of the aforesaid contracts, Sattar Exim paid a sum of Rs.19,22,00,100/- to TDA. It is, however, alleged in the FIR that TDA supplied cashew nuts of inferior quality, that there was a short shipment of 80 metric tons of cashew nuts and that a certain quantity of the cashew nuts was kept on hold by the Customs authorities, who allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.1.35 crores towards port clearance and certain amount of cashew nuts were sold to third party. 4. He submits that, following the aforesaid events, Sattar Exim issued a demand notice upon TDA under the relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Subsequently, a proceeding has been initiated before the learned NCLT for recovery of an amount of approximately Rs.14,15,13,754/-. In the meantime, an FIR was lodged 3 before the Contai Police Station, on the basis whereof the present criminal proceeding has been initiated. 5. He submits that, in order to attract criminal liability for the alleged offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating, there must be some material to demonstrate that the accused had a dishonest or fraudulent intention from the very inception of the transaction. In the present case, he submits that TDA had initially supplied cashew nuts worth approximately Rs.3 crores and had also refunded a sum of Rs.1.39 crores to Sattar Exim. According to him, these circumstances clearly indicate that the transaction was entered into in the ordinary course of business and that the accused had no dishonest or fraudulent intention at its inception. 6. He places strong reliance upon a “Force Majeure Notification” issued by TOUBA Center in respect of the supply of 2,000 MT of dried raw cashew nuts to Dhanvi Enterprise, one of the business associates of TDA, the proprietor of which is also an accused person in the present case. By the said notification, it was intimated that, owing to exceptionally heavy and prolonged rainfall in the producing regions, there had been a delay in the supply of cashew nuts. He submits that, on account of circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner and his business associates, the contracted quantity of cashew nuts could not be supplied to the complainant’s firm. 7. He refers to the decisions reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690, Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and (2024) 12 SCC 483, Lalit Chaturvedi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., for the proposition that a mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless a fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown to have existed from the inception of the transaction. Relying upon the decision 4 reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1462 (Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh R. Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.), he submits that where any amount becomes due in connection with a commercial transaction, the appropriate remedy for recovery thereof is to institute a civil proceeding, refer the dispute to arbitration, where applicable, or initiate appropriate proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. However, according to him, setting the criminal law in motion in lieu of such remedies would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Placing reliance upon the decision reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 (Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar & Anr.), he submits that even if the intention to cheat develops subsequently, such subsequent conduct would not, by itself, constitute the offence of cheating. He asserts that, in the present case, there is no material to demonstrate that the accused had any dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction and that, even if the allegations contained in the FIR are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating are not made out. He further submits that the co-accused persons have already been granted bail and, considering the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner may also be extended the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 8. Mr. Sen, learned Advocate appearing for the de facto complainant, vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by Mr. Bhattacharjee. He places reliance upon a document and submits that the cashew nuts supplied by the petitioner were found to be unfit for human consumption, as certified by the Food Safety and Standards Authority. He further alleges that, instead of supplying the cashew nuts in terms of the agreement, the accused persons sold the same to third parties. He submits that the other accused persons were arrested and, in 5 order to secure bail, they issued cheques towards repayment of the amount due; however, the said cheques were subsequently dishonoured. He further submits that the FIR was registered on 27th March, 2025, whereas the Force Majeure Notification was issued only on 19th May, 2025, and contends that the said notification was procured by the accused persons subsequently with a view to creating a defence against the allegations and avoiding the rigours of criminal prosecution. He asserts that, having regard to the nature and magnitude of the transaction involving cashew nuts worth approximately Rs.19 crores, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain where and to whom the accused persons had supplied the cashew nuts. 9. Mr. Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for the State, produces the Memo of Evidence and the Case Diary and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail on the basis of the materials collected during investigation. He submits that, from the statements of the witnesses recorded in the course of investigation, it transpires that the petitioner had no place of business at the address furnished by him. 10. Heard the learned Advocates and perused the materials on record. 11. Indisputably, in the present case, the genesis of the allegations lies in the three agreements entered into between TDA and Sattar Exim, pursuant to which the accused persons were required to supply approximately 1,900 MT of cashew nuts to Sattar Exim. It is alleged that the accused persons did not supply the contracted quantity of cashew nuts, supplied cashew nuts of inferior quality, there was a short shipment and, further, that a portion of the cashew nuts was sold to third parties. Thus, the dispute undoubtedly originates from a commercial and contractual transaction. However, the mere fact that 6 the dispute arises out of a commercial transaction does not, by itself, entitle an accused to the grant of pre-arrest bail. It is equally well settled that the same set of facts may, in a given case, give rise to both civil and criminal liability and that the availability of a civil remedy does not, by itself, operate as a bar to criminal prosecution. The question that, therefore, falls for consideration is whether the allegations, taken at their face value, satisfy the essential ingredients of the criminal offences alleged against the petitioner. 12. There can be no quarrel with the proposition of law that a mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust unless a fraudulent or dishonest intention existed from the inception of the transaction. Likewise, a subsequent failure or inability to perform a contractual obligation cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence that the party had a fraudulent or dishonest intention when the contract was entered into. The question that, therefore, requires consideration is whether the materials on record disclose the existence of any such fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the accused persons at the inception of the transaction. 13. In the present case, the FIR itself records that, initially, the accused company was prompt in procuring and supplying certain quantities of raw cashew nuts; however, after the end of January, 2025, TDA allegedly started defaulting in respect of the cargoes to be supplied to Sattar Exim. It is also undisputed that TDA had initially supplied cashew nuts worth approximately Rs.3 crores and had refunded a sum of Rs.1.39 crores to Sattar Exim. There is, further, a contemporaneous Force Majeure Notification referring specifically to circumstances affecting the procurement and supply of cashew nuts. It is also evident that the complainant had served a demand notice upon the accused 7 persons and that proceedings have already been initiated under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the learned NCLT for recovery of the amount claimed to be due. The statements of two witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, to the effect that TDA had no permanent place of business at the address furnished by it, are, at this stage, merely materials collected during investigation and, standing alone, cannot establish that TDA in fact had no place of business. Equally, the mere fact that the transaction involved a substantial amount of approximately Rs.19 crores towards the supply of cashew nuts cannot, by itself, furnish a sufficient ground to deny the petitioner the benefit of pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS. 14. The co-accused persons have already been granted bail. The Investigating Officer has also collected the documents relating to the transactions in question and, therefore, the possibility of the petitioner tampering with the evidence appears to be remote. The petitioner has a permanent place of residence, and TDA maintains bank accounts and has probably a GST registration. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, the role attributed to the petitioner and the totality of the circumstances, and upon considering the cumulative effect of the prima facie materials placed before the Court, I am of the view that the petitioner may be extended the benefit of Section 482 of the BNSS, subject to appropriate conditions. 15. Accordingly, it is ordered that, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount, one of whom shall be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai, Purba Medinipur, and subject further to the condition that the petitioner shall meet the Investigating Officer once in 8 a fortnight until submission of the charge-sheet in addition to the conditions enumerated in Section 482(2) BNSS. It is further clarified that, in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to approach the learned Court below for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner, without any further reference to this Court. 16. The application being C.R.M. (A) 2180 of 2026 is, thus, disposed of. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)