Arun Kumar vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Arun Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 125 of 2021, arising from Complaint Case No. 296 of 2021, registered under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations stated that the petitioner conducted large transactions using the informant's GSTIN without their knowledge, in connivance with others. The petitioner argued that the allegations were false, the FIR was registered after an inordinate delay, and the complaint only raised suspicion without specifying any amount of defalcation or cheating. The petitioner offered to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- with the Chief Commissioner, CGST & CX, Ranchi Zone, without prejudice to his defense, and undertook to cooperate with the investigation.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The primary issue revolved around the petitioner's entitlement to anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of financial fraud and potential GST-related offenses. The Court considered the petitioner's submissions regarding the falsity of allegations, the delay in FIR registration, and the lack of specific monetary details in the complaint. The petitioner's undertaking to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- with the Chief Commissioner, CGST & CX, Ranchi Zone, without prejudice to his defense and subject to the final decision of the case, was a significant factor. The Court reasoned that it was a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where allegations are unsubstantiated, there is a significant delay in FIR registration, and the petitioner offers a substantial deposit without prejudice, anticipatory bail can be granted, subject to conditions. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon arrest or surrender within six weeks, upon furnishing proof of deposit, a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties, and undertaking to cooperate with the investigation and appear as and when noticed. The trial court was directed to pass an appropriate order regarding the deposited money at the conclusion of the trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of financial irregularities and potential GST evasion. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the allegations were false and unsubstantiated, citing an inordinate and unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR. They emphasized that the complaint only contained suspicion and did not specify any definite amount of defalcation or cheating. The petitioner's offer to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was presented as a gesture of good faith and willingness to cooperate, without admitting guilt, and subject to the final outcome of the case. They also highlighted their commitment to cooperate with the investigation. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. No specific statutory provisions, circulars, or precedents were cited by the State in opposition.