Aashutosh Kumar Singh Allias Aashutosh vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court held that, prima facie, the FIR appears to have been lodged for a deficiency in service. The Court noted that the petitioner had supplied the machines, issued a GST invoice, and an E-way bill, and that the informant had claimed input tax credit. Furthermore, the petitioner had filed a complaint case under the Negotiable Instruments Act for non-clearance of a cheque issued by the informant. The FIR was lodged after the petitioner filed the complaint case. Considering these facts, the Court found that the matter appeared to be civil in nature and directed the petitioner to surrender before the learned court within two weeks. Upon surrender, the learned court was directed to release the petitioner on bail on terms and conditions and sureties as deemed fit.

Facts

The petitioner, Aashutosh Kumar Singh, director of S.M.B.I. Machine Private Limited, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Dhansar P.S. Case No.68 of 2025, registered under sections 316(2) and 318(2) of the BNS, 2023. The petitioner had supplied two atta packing machines to the informant, issuing a GST invoice dated 14.10.2024 and an E-way Bill. The informant claimed input tax credit of Rs.4,86,000/-. The petitioner alleges the informant failed to pay Rs.5,50,000/- out of the total invoice amount of Rs.31,86,000/-, leading the petitioner to file a complaint case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The informant, however, claims the petitioner misrepresented their office location in Kolkata and that the supplied machines have not been installed, forming the basis for a cheating case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR, lodged for alleged deficiency in service and potential cheating, is maintainable when the dispute appears to be primarily civil in nature, concerning a commercial transaction and non-payment of dues, thereby warranting anticipatory bail for the petitioner? (Sections 316(2), 318(2) BNS, 2023). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that the transaction is commercial, evidenced by a GST invoice and E-way bill, and the dispute arises from non-payment by the informant, for which a separate case under the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed. They contend that a civil dispute is being wrongly converted into a criminal case of cheating. Revenue/State's Contention: The State and informant jointly oppose the prayer, arguing that the petitioner took the amount, misrepresented their office location in Kolkata, and the supplied machines have not been installed, thus constituting a case of cheating. They pray for rejection of anticipatory bail.