Umesh Kumar Yadav Alias Umesh Yadav vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, including the serious allegations leveled against the petitioner. The investigation was ongoing at the time of the judgment. The Court noted the informant's support for the case and the recorded statements of witnesses who stated that a 'panchayati' was organized prior to the lodging of the FIR, where the petitioner allegedly assured the informant that he would return Rs. 24 lakhs. While the petitioner raised several arguments regarding the alleged forgery and discrepancies in the tax invoices and GST application, the Court did not delve into a detailed analysis of these points in the context of granting anticipatory bail. The primary consideration for the Court was the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation. The Court found sufficient grounds to deny anticipatory bail, implying that the investigation needed to proceed without the petitioner being granted protection from arrest.

Facts

The petitioner, Umesh Kumar Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 467, 468, 420, 120B, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by Ganesh Pandey, who alleged that the petitioner and his brother received approximately Rs. 24 lakhs worth of coal between July 9, 2017, and August 17, 2017, but failed to make payment. The informant further alleged an assault when demanding the money. The petitioner contended that the allegations were false, citing discrepancies in HSN codes, ambiguous tax invoices with identical truck usage on the same date, and a lack of authorized signatures on some invoices. He also questioned the GST deductions, arguing they should be IGST and CGST/SGST, not just 'GST'. The petitioner claimed he was being falsely implicated due to his refusal to use manufactured documents for coal transportation. The State, through the informant's counter-affidavit and the case diary, supported the allegations, noting that a panchayati was held where the petitioner allegedly assured repayment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC are made out against the petitioner, considering the alleged discrepancies in the tax invoices and GST application? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 420, 406, 120B IPC and GST provisions). Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner argued that the case was falsely implicated due to his refusal to engage his trucks for transporting coal based on manufactured documents. He highlighted inconsistencies in HSN codes, suggesting different types of coal were involved. He pointed out that multiple invoices were issued on the same date for the same truck, which he deemed impossible. The absence of authorized signatures on some invoices and the incorrect GST deductions (claiming it should be IGST/CGST/SGST) were presented as evidence of forgery and a sham transaction intended to deceive the system. He also questioned the validity of the PAN number requirement for transactions below Rs. 10 lakh, as stated by the informant. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The State, through the informant's counter-affidavit, denied the petitioner's claims. It was stated that the PAN number is not always compulsory, especially for transactions below Rs. 10 lakh, and the petitioner's PAN was provided in relevant documents. The informant disputed the petitioner's claim of being in the transport business. The counter-affidavit asserted that the petitioner had cheated the informant from the beginning and never intended to pay for the coal. The case diary indicated that the informant supported the FIR allegations and that a panchayati was held where the petitioner allegedly assured repayment of Rs. 24 lakhs.