Manoj Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court considered the submissions of both parties and perused the record. It found that there are allegations against the petitioner of defalcating government funds in connivance with other accused persons. Given the nature of these allegations, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court noted the State's submission regarding the tax invoices lacking CGST and SGST details, which raised concerns about their authenticity and the petitioner's alleged involvement in fraudulent activities. The Court's reasoning hinges on the seriousness of the alleged financial irregularities and the evidence presented by the State, which suggests a conspiracy to defraud the government. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected. The petitioner was granted liberty to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks and seek regular bail, with the direction that the Court below should pass an order preferably on the same day, without being prejudiced by the dismissal of this anticipatory bail application.

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar, is seeking anticipatory bail in Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 76 of 2019, registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, as a contractor for the 'Nal Jal Yojana' under the Chief Minister's 'Sat Nischaya Scheme', conspired with other accused to fraudulently withdraw Rs. 9,80,000/-. The remaining Rs. 2,60,000/- was allegedly withdrawn by the Mukhia and another individual. The petitioner claims innocence, stating he was merely a supplier of hardware items, not the contractor, and that the work was completed. He has no criminal antecedents. The State opposed the bail, pointing to tax invoices submitted by the petitioner and alleging they are fabricated as they lack CGST and SGST details, suggesting a fraudulent defalcation of government funds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, Manoj Kumar, is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 76 of 2019, registered for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 34 of the IPC, considering the allegations of fraudulent withdrawal of government funds for the 'Nal Jal Yojana'. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends he is innocent and falsely implicated. He argues the allegations are general and omnibus, and he was only a supplier of hardware, not the contractor. He asserts the work was completed and the goods supplied were utilized. He also states he has no criminal antecedents. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposes the bail, citing specific allegations of fraudulent withdrawal. It highlights that the tax invoices annexed by the petitioner for goods supplied lack CGST and SGST details, suggesting they are false and fabricated. The State argues there is ample evidence against the petitioner in the case diary, indicating his involvement in defalcating government money.