5.This Court is of the considered opinion that as far as the case of cheating under Section 420 of IPC is concerned, a larger perception is to be considered. If an offence of 420 IPC is registered with reference to the facts involving the public interests at large, then, the Courts must be conscious in granting anticipatory bail. In other words, the offence of cheating is committed against the public interest or against the public at large, then, the Courts are bound to be slow in granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons. As far as certain allegations of cheating between the individual persons are concerned, then, the Courts have to consider that whether granting anticipatory bail to the accused would affect the trial or not. Different yardsticks are to be adopted with reference to the facts and circumstances placed before the Court, while considering the anticipatory bail petition. A fine distinction is to be drawn with reference to the facts as well as the allegations placed before the Courts. As far as the case of cheating between two individuals are concerned, by detaining a person unnecessarily in prison, the defacto complainant cannot utilise the same for the purpose of recovering the money involved or to settle the cases. The Court cannot be a party to clear such settlement or encourage such settlement between the parties, once, the offence is established. All the offences are to be tried and if there is an element of cheating disproved beyond any pale of doubt during trial, then, the persons may not be convicted and the Court's approach shall not be on the ground of perspective of settling the issues, if all the offences are against the State and the Society at large. However, in these kind of cases, if no purpose would be served, then, anticipatory bail can be granted.
