Sachin Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Rudrapur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2023, registered for offenses under Sections 406, 419, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case alleges that the informant was defrauded of Rs. 1,29,650/- through a series of demands for loan processing fees, TDS, and GST, made via mobile calls and PhonePe transactions. The informant initially paid Rs. 3,750/-, followed by Rs. 16,500/-, Rs. 36,500/-, Rs. 72,900/-, and Rs. 99,900/-. The petitioners' names emerged in the confessional statement of a co-accused, Pankaj Singh. No recovery has been made from the petitioners, and the mobile numbers used in the transactions are not in their names. The petitioners claim innocence and no criminal antecedents.
Held
The Court rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail for the petitioners. The reasoning was based on the "heinous nature of allegation" against the petitioners and the fact that witnesses in the case diary supported the prosecution case. The Court found that the case was not fit for anticipatory bail. The petitioners were directed to surrender before the court below within six weeks from the date of the order and seek regular bail. The court below was instructed to consider the regular bail application on its own merits, without being prejudiced by the anticipatory bail rejection order. No specific GST provisions were discussed or applied in the decision, as the case primarily dealt with criminal charges under the Indian Penal Code.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with Rudrapur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2023, registered under Sections 406, 419, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, considering the allegations of cheating and misappropriation of Rs. 1,29,650/-? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners contend they are innocent, falsely implicated, and not named in the FIR. Their involvement arose from a co-accused's confessional statement, with no recovery from their possession. They highlight that the mobile numbers used for transactions are not in their names and that they have no criminal antecedents. Revenue's Argument: The State vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail, asserting direct allegations against the petitioners for cheating and misappropriation. They rely on the case diary, stating that witnesses have supported the prosecution case in paragraphs 4, 5, and 6.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 2 02-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Rudrapur P.S Case No. 36 of 2023 dated 22.03.2023 corresponding G.R. No. 536 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable u/ss 406, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case, on 22.03.2023, someone offered loan of Rs. 10,00000/- through Dhani App by calling through mobile no. 6291506779, thereafter caller told the informant to deposit Rs. 3750/- and the informant paid the 2/3 said amount by phone pay, thereafter, the caller demanded Rs. 16,500/- for TDS and the informant paid the said amount, thereafter the caller again demanded Rs. 36,500/- for GST having mobile no. 8345911426 which is in the name of Dharamraj and the informant paid the said amount but again caller demanded Rs. 72,900/- and the informant paid the said amount on phone pay but again caller demanded Rs. 99,900/-, thereafter the informant suspected and realized that he has been cheated. The informant has alleged that total Rs. 1,29,650/- has been cheated from him.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioners are not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioners has sprung up in this case in the confessional statement of the co-accused Pankaj Singh. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. It is further submitted that from perusal of the FIR, the informant made a call through mobile no. 629150779 and the informant paid the said amount from phone pay on mobile no. 8345911426 which is in the name of Dharam Raj not the petitioners. The petitioners have no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated in 3/3 para 3 of the bail petition.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that there is direct allegation again the petitioners who involved in cheating and misappropriation of Rs. 1,29,650/-. It is further submitted that as per impugned order, it is mentioned that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case in Para- 4, 5 and 6 of the case diary,
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the heinous nature of allegation against the petitioners. It is not fit case for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected and the petitioners are directed to surrender before the Court below concerned within six weeks from the date of this order and pray for regular bail, the learned Court below may consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioners in accordance with law and on its own merits without being prejudiced by this order.
This application is rejected.
shivam/- (Chandra Prakash 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.