Renu Singh vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the significant background facts presented. Firstly, a First Information Report (FIR) with similar allegations in Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 121/2018 had already been quashed by the High Court. Secondly, the assessment orders raised against the petitioner in connected writ petitions (W.P.(T) No. 91 of 2021 and W.P.(T) No. 94 of 2021) were also quashed, and the matter was remanded back to the assessment authority. The Court found these circumstances compelling enough to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The ratio decidendi is that where a petitioner has faced quashing of similar criminal proceedings and assessment demands, and the matter is remanded, anticipatory bail is a justifiable relief. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks and 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.

Facts

The petitioner, Renu Singh, sought anticipatory bail in Telco P.S. Case No. 104/2018, concerning allegations of fraud against the government exchequer amounting to Rs. 7.23 Crores. The allegations involved M/s. P.K. Traders, a non-existent firm, claiming Input Tax Credit without actual goods movement, with the petitioner implicated as a beneficiary. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that a similar FIR in Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 121/2018 was quashed by the High Court. Furthermore, assessment orders against the petitioner in W.P.(T) No. 91 of 2021 and W.P.(T) No. 94 of 2021 were also quashed, with the matter remanded to the assessment authority. The State opposed the bail, stating the petitioner provided a wrong account number to GST officials.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in Telco P.S. Case No. 104/2018, considering the quashing of a similar FIR in Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 121/2018 and the quashing of assessment orders against her in W.P.(T) No. 91 of 2021 and W.P.(T) No. 94 of 2021, which were remanded back to the assessment authority. (Question of law and mixed fact and law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that given the quashing of a similar criminal case and the subsequent quashing of assessment demands with a remand order, she deserves anticipatory bail. The petitioner relied on the High Court's previous orders in Cr.M.P. No. 3318 of 2019 (quashing Bokaro FIR) and W.P.(T) No. 91 of 2021 and W.P.(T) No. 94 of 2021 (quashing assessment demands). Revenue/State's arguments: The State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, submitting that the petitioner had provided a wrong account number to GST officials.