the present applicant, who has received the amount or has forged the documents. As far as the custodial interrogation of the present applicant is concerned, it is not required. In view of that, he be protected by granting anticipatory bail. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalit Chaturvedi and ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr. Dated 06.02.2024, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. On going through the facts of the cited case it revealed that the applicant therein had supplied wood waste fuel worth of Rs.5,69,31,811/- and out of that transaction some amount was to be recovered, and therefore, the complainant therein had filed the complaint. In the light of the said facts, the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court by referring the judgment in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and ors. vs. State of Bihar and anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is quite clear that respondent Sanjay Garg’s grievance is regarding failure of the appellants to pay the outstanding amount, in spite of the respondent Sanjay Garg’s repeated demands. It is further observed that the assertions made in the complaint are correct, but even then, a criminal offence under Section 420 read with Section 415 of the IPC is not established in the absence of deception by making false and misleading representation.
