Pradeep Kumar vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, Pradeep Kumar. The decision was based on the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, particularly highlighting that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and no specific role was attributed to him. The Court noted that the petitioner's implication was based on the confessional statement of a co-accused, who had already been granted bail. The fact that the petitioner had been in custody since March 19, 2020, and his undertaking to cooperate with the trial were also considered significant factors. The Court found merit in the petitioner's plea for bail under these circumstances. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to his cooperation with the trial.

Facts

The petitioner, Pradeep Kumar, sought bail in connection with Telco P.S. Case No.104 of 2018, registered under sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 132 (1) (b)/132 (1) (e)/ 132 (1) (i) of the Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The allegations involve the illegal benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and defrauding the government exchequer. The petitioner's counsel argued that the main allegation is against co-accused Pankaj Singh, the proprietor of M/s. P.K. Traders, and the petitioner is not named in the FIR, nor is any specific role attributed to him. The petitioner's implication is solely based on the confessional statement of a co-accused. The co-accused has already been granted bail. The petitioner has been in custody since March 19, 2020, and undertakes to cooperate with the trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in connection with Telco P.S. Case No.104 of 2018, registered under Sections 406/420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 132 (1) (b)/132 (1) (e)/ 132 (1) (i) of the Jharkhand Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the primary allegations are against co-accused Pankaj Singh, who is accused of illegally providing Input Tax Credit (ITC) and defrauding the government. The petitioner contended that he is not named in the FIR and no specific role has been attributed to him. His implication is based solely on the confessional statement of a co-accused. Furthermore, the co-accused has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court. The petitioner has been in custody since March 19, 2020, and has undertaken to cooperate with the trial. Revenue/State's Contentions: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for bail.