Mukesh Kumar Agrawal vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The Court noted that the GST Department's report indicated the presence of a GST invoice and tax amount, but deemed it invalid due to illegal transportation. Crucially, the Court found no material collected by the prosecution to establish the commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. While acknowledging that there might be a violation of the GST Act, the Court held that, prima facie, the applicant had not committed the alleged IPC offences. Therefore, the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. was extended to the applicant. The applicant was directed to be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, subject to conditions including availability for interrogation and appearance before the trial court.

Facts

The applicant, Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 33/2023 registered at Police Station Basantpur for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that a truck carrying 700 bags of cement was intercepted, and the documents indicated the goods were to be delivered to Mahamaya Hardware, Kusmi, but the driver was proceeding to Dhanwar, suggesting an attempt to evade tax. The applicant, a CNF of JK Lakshmi Cement Limited, claimed to have raised invoices and e-way bills upon M/s. Raj Traders, Dhanwar, and was delivering goods to Mahamaya Hardware through his firm, M/s. Maa Sharda Trading Company. A report from the Assistant Commissioner, GST, indicated that while a GST invoice with tax of Rs. 51,798/- was present, it was considered invalid due to illegal transportation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No. 33/2023 registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, had not evaded tax, and had duly raised invoices and e-way bills. He asserted his authority to sell cement anywhere in Chhattisgarh as a CNF agent and that the goods were being delivered to the intended recipient through his firm. He contended that the issue might be a violation of the GST Act but not the IPC offences alleged. State's Arguments: The State opposed the bail application, citing clear allegations against the applicant regarding the commission of offences and praying for the rejection of the application.