Raj Kumar Choudhary vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court held that the allegations primarily revolve around civil disputes stemming from business transactions and agreements, specifically concerning breach of contract and financial dealings. Regarding the GST aspect, the Court found that the instant case is not related to any offenses under the GST Act. It was also an admitted fact that a panel of Arbitrators had already been appointed by the High Court to arbitrate the dispute between the parties. Considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the dispute appears to be civil in nature and is subject to arbitration, the Court was of the view that the petitioner deserved the protection of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was allowed, directing the petitioner to surrender before the court below and be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties, with specific conditions regarding the bailers and periodic appearance before the Investigating Officer.

Facts

This case involves an anticipatory bail application filed by Raj Kumar Choudhary (the petitioner) apprehending arrest in connection with Gola P.S. Case No. 96/2024. The case was registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 379, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that the petitioner, through his company Ambey Casting Pvt. Ltd., committed fraud by falsely promising business cooperation, took illegal control of the informant's factory, caused damage to machinery worth Rs. 4 crore, misused goods worth Rs. 50-60 lakh, made illegal profits of Rs. 3.5 crore, and incurred bank interest of Rs. 8.5 crore, resulting in a wrongful loss of Rs. 16 crore. The allegations also include Rs. 8.25 crore in tax and GST liabilities, totaling Rs. 25 crore in losses, and threats of false legal entanglements. The petitioner claims innocence, denies the allegations as concocted and based on surmises, and states that the High Court has already appointed Arbitrators to resolve the dispute.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Sections 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the allegations of fraud, financial loss, and misuse of property? 2. Whether the allegations related to tax and GST liabilities, as mentioned in the FIR, constitute an offense under the GST Act, or are they part of a civil dispute? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he is innocent and falsely implicated. He contended that the allegations of non-payment, wrongful gains, financial loss, forgery, and GST non-compliance are concocted and lack evidence. He asserted that his company was not in possession of the industrial unit during the alleged period and that the entire case is based on surmises. He highlighted that the High Court has already appointed Arbitrators to resolve the dispute between the parties, indicating a civil nature of the conflict. State's Arguments: The State opposed the anticipatory bail application, arguing that the petitioner is not entitled to such relief. The State contended that the petitioner was involved in the violation of terms and conditions of several agreements. It was also noted that the petitioner did not appear before the Investigating Officer despite receiving a notice, with his advocate appearing instead.