No pre-arrest bail to Mumbai man for failing to supply ₹17.6-L gloves to trader

The Bombay high court (HC) recently rejected the anticipatory bail application of a man who was booked for allegedly defrauding a trader from Mumbai of ₹17

The Bombay high court (HC) recently rejected the anticipatory bail application of a man who was booked for allegedly defrauding a trader from Mumbai of ₹17.6 lakh in connivance with two others.

HT Image

The trader lodged the complaint in February after his order for 5,000 A+ quality Nitrile gloves, for which he had made the payment, did not reach him though the applicant had showed him documents pertaining to the dispatch. Though the applicant claimed that he was cheated by another supplier, the court held that as he portrayed himself to be the seller and had issued fake documents of the delivery of the gloves, he could not be granted anticipatory bail.

A single bench of justice Prakash Naik, while hearing the anticipatory bail application of Saiyed Faiz Hasan, was informed by advocate Shahid Pathan that after the complainant had placed the order for gloves with his client in January, Hasan had contacted another supplier of the gloves at Greater Noida who agreed to supply the order. Hasan then issued the invoices, e-way bills and LR copy (lorry receipt) to the complainant, based on which he remitted ₹17.6 lakh to the accused.

Pathan informed the court that Hasan had transferred the complainant’s payment to Shoeb Khan and Atif of Sabri Enterprises, and they had issued the tax invoice and railway transport bill with the railway parcel booking services on January 14. However, after the goods did not reach Mumbai on January 16, the complainant inquired with the railways and found that the documents were forged.

Pathan submitted that his client was willing to cooperate with the investigation and was not the main perpetrator. However, the complainant’s advocate and the state opposed the anticipatory bail application, stating that Hasan was not traceable at his office and residence addresses.

After hearing the submissions, the court observed, “There is every likelihood that the applicant and Shoeb Khan and Atif acted in connivance to deceive the complainant.” HC held that the transaction appeared to be suspicious and as Hasan was not agreeable to pay the complainant over ₹20 lakh (the money paid for the gloves and the expenses incurred for the case), his application was rejected.