The Himachal Pradesh High Court has emphasized that the resolution of monetary disputes, being a civil matter, should follow proper legal channels, rather than intertwining with criminal proceedings. Additionally, the court reiterated its stance that bail procedures should not be utilized as a method for recovering funds in such disputes.

Allowing the bail applications of accused/petitioners, Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed,

“The bail proceedings cannot be used to recover the amount advanced by the informant..It appears from the status report that the informant had invested the money in gold through Geeta but he has projected a different version that he had advanced the money as a help to Geeta. If the money was advanced as a help and is not being returned, it will give rise to civil liability and not criminal liability”.

In this case, the informant alleged that the petitioners enticed him into opening a gold shop but failed to deliver the agreed-upon gold and did not return the funds he invested. He claimed to have offered financial aid to petitioner-Geeta after her house was affected by a landslide. Rather than returning the money, she purportedly invested it in gold.

Justice Kainthla, after carefully examining the allegations, emphasized that the funds were given as assistance and were not officially entrusted to the accused individuals. It was emphasized that, at this stage, no evidence had been presented to establish a case of inducement or the transfer of property based on inducement. Consequently, it was concluded that the offense of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC was not prima facie established against the petitioners.

Highlighting the informant and the State were primarily focused on recovering the money through the bail proceedings, the bench cited the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi (2023) and emphasized that criminal proceedings are not intended for the collection of contested debts.

Based on these findings, the court granted the bail applications, making the interim bail orders until the case's resolution. The petitioners were instructed to comply with all terms and conditions set forth by the court.

Counsels for petitioners: Advocates Vinod Chauhan and Pawan Gautam

Counsel for respondent: Deputy Advocate General RP Singh

Case Title: Geeta Kashyap v. State of Himachal Pradesh (and connected matter)