Rabindra Kumar vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court, having heard both parties, was inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The reasoning appears to be based on the petitioners' submission that they have been falsely implicated, the fact that the necessary tax documents were presented at the time of interception, and the precedent set by the grant of anticipatory bail to a co-accused, Navnit Tiwary. The Court also noted the petitioners' lack of criminal antecedent and their undertaking to cooperate with the investigation. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where the accused have no criminal history, have cooperated with the investigation, and where co-accused have been granted similar relief, anticipatory bail may be granted, especially when the primary allegations are directed towards others. The operative direction is to release the petitioners on bail upon their arrest or surrender.

Facts

The petitioners, Rabindra Kumar and Amar Kumar Yadav, are seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in a case registered under Sections 414, 413, 420, 120B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 132(1)(b) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The case involves allegations of dealing with stolen iron scrap and creating forged tax invoices and e-Way bills to claim input tax credit. Petitioner no.1 is the owner-driver of the vehicle used for transportation, and petitioner no.2 is an employee of the transport company. The informant's report indicates that tax invoices and e-Way bills were presented at the time of vehicle interception. The primary allegations seem to be against co-accused Navnit Tiwary and Pankaj Kumar Khandelwal. Navnit Tiwary has already been granted anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations under the Indian Penal Code and the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017? The petitioners argued that they have been falsely implicated and have not committed any offence. They highlighted that the tax invoice and e-Way bill were presented at the time of interception. They also pointed out that the main allegations are against co-accused Navnit Tiwary, who has already been granted anticipatory bail, and Pankaj Kumar Khandelwal, involved in creating forged documents for input tax credit. The petitioners stated they have no criminal antecedent and undertake to cooperate with the investigation. The State, represented by the learned A.P.P., opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.