Aman Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner is a registered micro, small, and medium enterprise with a valid UDYAM registration number. It was observed that the petitioner's firm purchased copper scrap worth Rs. 25,46,752/- from Abhishek Enterprises, which also possesses a GSTIN number. The petitioner's firm subsequently sold copper scrap to SRO Overseas Private Limited, evidenced by an E-Way bill dated January 21, 2025. The Court also took into account that the transporter accepted the petitioner's consignment for delivery to SRO Overseas Private Limited in Delhi. Based on these facts, the Court found itself inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.

Facts

This case involves a criminal miscellaneous application for anticipatory bail filed by Aman Kumar. The petitioner is accused in R.P.F. Fatuah Police Station Case No. 01 of 2025, registered for offences under Section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. The prosecution alleges that on January 18, 2025, approximately 350 meters of Overhead Equipment Wire, valued at Rs. 25,666/-, were stolen. The petitioner, proprietor of Swastik Enterprises, a firm dealing in copper scrap registered with the Ministry of MSME and GST, claims he was falsely implicated. He states his firm purchased copper scrap worth Rs. 25,46,752/- from Abhishek Enterprises on January 18, 2025, after paying CGST and SGST. His firm subsequently sold copper scrap to SRO Overseas Private Limited, with transportation arranged through Seven Rail and Transport Company. The petitioner argues that the transporter accepted the consignment after verification, absolving him of further liability.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, a registered proprietor of a firm dealing in copper scrap, can be held liable for the alleged theft of Overhead Equipment Wire when the FIR is against unknown persons and the petitioner claims to be a bonafide purchaser and seller of scrap, with documentation including GST registration, E-Way bills, and tax invoices supporting his transactions? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that he is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated. He emphasizes that his firm, Swastik Enterprises, is duly registered with the GST and deals in copper scrap. He presented evidence of purchasing copper scrap from Abhishek Enterprises and selling it to SRO Overseas Private Limited, supported by E-Way bills and tax invoices, with applicable CGST and SGST paid. He argues that once the transporter accepted the consignment after verification, the consignor (petitioner) has no further liability. The petitioner also highlights that his implication is based on the statement of a clerk from the transportation company during a police raid. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned counsel for the State referred to the case diary, indicating that during the investigation, a transporter named Naushad Ali, who holds a tender for SLR, spoke about the petitioner's involvement in the case.