Avinash Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Avinash Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in Patliputra P.S. Case No. 421 of 2025. The case was registered for offences under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The allegation is that the petitioner, along with others, defalcated Rs. 6.60 crores by issuing fake GST bills and using forged documents. The petitioner claims innocence, stating he is a 50% shareholder in Hopecon Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and the FIR was filed by a director due to a shareholding dispute to usurp the company. He also asserts that the company's audits revealed no irregularities. The State and informant opposed the bail, alleging the petitioner is a key conspirator who transferred Rs. 6.60 crores from Hopecon Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. to his proprietorship, M/s Hope Traders, for misappropriation. They further stated that 857 invoices amounting to Rs. 5.84 crores were raised against Hopecon Infra Pvt. Ltd. and later recalled citing inadvertent mistakes. The petitioner also has four criminal antecedents.
Held
The Court refused the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. The decision was based on considering the nature of the accusation and the petitioner's criminal antecedents. The Court found the allegations of defalcation of a significant amount (Rs. 6.60 crores) through the issuance of fake GST bills and the use of forged documents to be serious. Furthermore, the Court took into account the petitioner's stated criminal antecedents, which were presented as four in number, suggesting a pattern of alleged criminal behavior. The Court's reasoning implicitly weighed the gravity of the alleged economic offenses against the petitioner's claim of innocence and the ongoing dispute within the company. The ratio decidendi is that individuals accused of serious economic fraud, especially when coupled with prior criminal history, are not entitled to anticipatory bail. The operative direction was the refusal of anticipatory bail.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of defalcation of Rs. 6.60 crores through fake GST bills and forged documents, and the petitioner's alleged role as a key conspirator and principal offender? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends he is innocent and falsely implicated due to a shareholding dispute within his company, Hopecon Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. He argues that the FIR was instituted by a director with the ulterior motive of usurping the company. He also highlights that independent audits of the company have not revealed any irregularities. He relies on the principle that anticipatory bail should be granted to protect individuals from false implication and harassment. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State and informant vehemently oppose the bail application. They argue that the petitioner is a key conspirator and principal offender who committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and economic fraud. They point to the transfer of Rs. 6.60 crores to the petitioner's proprietorship and the raising of numerous fake GST invoices, which were later recalled. They also emphasize the petitioner's four criminal antecedents, suggesting he is a habitual offender.
Sections Cited
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(2), 352, 3(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 7 29-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and the State.
Petitioner apprehends arrest in Patliputra P. S. Case No. 421 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
It is alleged that this petitioner along with other accused persons defalcated the amount of Rs. 6.60 crores by issuing fake GST bills and using forged documents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner along with his brother is 50% shareholder in Hopecon Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. where there is ongoing dispute regarding 2/3 shareholding and present F.I.R. has been instituted by one of the Directors of the company to coerce petitioner and his brother with sole intention to usurp the entire company. It is further submitted that in every financial year, audit of the company takes place by an independent auditor in which no irregularities were found and petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case with an ulterior motive.
Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is key conspirator and principal offender who while occupying a position of trust committed well-planned act of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery and economic fraud. Petitioner transferred Rs. 6.60 crores from M/s Hopecon Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Hope Traders, a proprietorship of petitioner with sole intention of misappropriating the goodwill and reputation of the company of informant. Petitioner raised 857 invoices in which 583 invoices were for the month of October 2024 and 274 invoices raised in January 2025, filed in the month of February 2025 amounting to Rs. 5.84 crores against M/s Hopecon Infra Pvt. Ltd. It is only after the intervention of the informant that those GST invoices were recalled by the petitioner firm citing 3/3 inadvertent mistake. It is further submitted that petitioner is a habitual offender and has got four criminal antecedents.
Considering the nature of accusation and criminal antecedents, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is refused.
Navya/- (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) U T
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.