Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497(2).497(1)

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 489F

Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Section: XXXVII

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Dishonestly issuing a cheque---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against the petitioner was that he dishonestly issued one cheque amounting to Rs. 32,00,000/- and second cheque amounting to Rs. 500,000/- in favour of the complainant--Second cheque amounting to Rs. 500,000/- when presented in the bank for encashment was dishonoured---Record evinced that the petitioner was running a business and bank statements of the petitioner from 01.01.2021 to 09.04.2024 indicated certain business transactions with the complainant and others---In such circumstances, whether the cheques in question were issued towards fulfillment of an obligation within the meaning of S.489-F P.P.C was a question which would be resolved by the Trial Court after recording of evidence---Maximum punishment of offence provided under S.489-F P.P.C, was not more than imprisonment for three years or fine or both, as such, the same was not covered by the prohibition contained in subsection (1) of S.497 Cr.P.C---In non-bailable offences falling in the second category i.e. punishment with imprisonment for less than ten years, the grant of bail was arule and refusal an exception---No exceptional circumstances could be pointed out by the prosecutor as well as the counsel for the complainant---For recovery of amount, civil proceedings provided remedies under O.XXXVII C.P.C. and in that regard, civil suit was pending adjudication between the parties before the civil Court---Moreover, involvement of a huge amount did not enlarge the punitive scope of S.489-F P.P.C and it was no ground for refusal of bail--Allegedly, other cases of similar nature had been registered against the petitioner, but mere registration of other criminal cases against an accused did not disentitle him for the grant of bail if on merits he had a prima facie case--Petitioner was behind the bars since 22.01.2025 and his physical custody was no more required by the Investigating Agency for the purpose of further investigation---As such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite…