Satish Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Satish Kumar, is seeking anticipatory bail in Mufassil Police Station Case No. 156 of 2022, registered for offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleges that the petitioner took hardware articles worth Rs. 5,40,000/- on credit and failed to pay the amount despite repeated requests. The petitioner contends that the dispute is civil in nature, arising from business transactions. He claims to have taken articles worth Rs. 20,00,000/-, with Rs. 5,40,000/- due. The petitioner further states that he demanded GST bills for the purchases, which the informant did not provide. In a panchayati, after deducting the GST amount, the petitioner paid Rs. 2,51,468/- and is willing to pay the balance upon receiving the GST bills.
Held
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the nature of the allegations and the fact that the dispute appears to stem from business transactions between the parties. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that he had paid a significant portion of the amount after a panchayati and was willing to pay the balance upon receiving GST bills, suggesting a potential civil dimension to the dispute. The Court found no serious allegations made out against the petitioner that would warrant denial of anticipatory bail. The petitioner was directed to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran, at Bettiah, within four weeks, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Key Issues
1. Whether the allegations disclose a criminal offence or a civil dispute arising from business transactions, particularly concerning the non-payment of goods and the demand for GST bills (Sections 420/406 IPC). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argues that the matter is a civil dispute disguised as a criminal case, stemming from business transactions. He asserts that the non-payment is due to the informant's failure to provide GST bills. He claims to have made a partial payment after a panchayati and is willing to pay the rest upon receiving the necessary documentation. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 (informant) opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. The State, through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, is also present. No specific arguments from the State or informant regarding the GST bills or the civil nature of the dispute are recorded.
Sections Cited
Section 420, Section 406, Section 438(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 4 18-12-2025
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Mufassil Police Station Case No. 156 of 2022, dated 17.10.2020, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case, as per the complaint petition, is that the informant runs a hardware shop and the petitioner took some articles worth Rs. 5,40,000/- from the informant on credit and despite repeated request made by the informant, the petitioner did not pay the amount.
2/3
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. There was business transactions between the petitioner and the informant, which gives rise to civil dispute, but this has been given the colour of criminal case. He further submits that the petitioner has taken articles worth Rs. 20,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 5,40,000/- was to be paid by the petitioner to the informant. The petitioner demanded GST bills of the purchase made by him from the informant, but the informant did not provide him the GST bill and in the panchayati, after deducting the GST amount, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 2,51,468/- to the informant and he undertakes to pay the rest amount if the informant provides him the GST bill of the purchase made by him.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned and taking into consideration the nature of allegation made in the First Information Report and the fact that no serious allegation is made out against the petitioner and 3/3 the dispute between the parties relates to business transactions between them, I am inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
This application is, accordingly, allowed.
Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran, at Bettiah, in connection with Mufassil Police Station Case No. 156 of 2022, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973..
Prabhakar Anand/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, 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.