Pankaj Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Pankaj Kumar, is seeking anticipatory bail in Rampur Police Station Case No. 27 of 2023, registered under Sections 379/420 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant, owner of a company with GST No. 10AJNPS7134F129, entrusted the petitioner with the deposit of GST amounts and paid him Rs. 2,78,000/-. The petitioner allegedly deposited only Rs. 1,33,821/-. The informant's professional charge was Rs. 15,000/-. The prosecution alleges the petitioner misappropriated Rs. 1,44,179/- by falsely claiming the remaining amount was needed for bribes, despite GST deposits being online. The petitioner claims only Rs. 1,29,179/- is due after adjusting his remuneration and offers to repay this amount in installments.
Held
The Court granted provisional bail to the petitioner, Pankaj Kumar, subject to strict conditions. The primary consideration for granting bail was the petitioner's offer to repay the disputed amount of Rs. 1,29,179/- to the informant in installments over six months. The Court acknowledged the submissions made by both parties and the petitioner's readiness to settle the financial aspect of the dispute. The reasoning is that the petitioner's willingness to return the money, coupled with the fact that the dispute appears to have a significant financial component, warrants granting him an opportunity to secure his release while fulfilling his repayment obligations. The provisional bail will be confirmed by the learned District Court upon successful payment of the entire amount. The Court also provided specific directions for the installment payments and contact information for the informant.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust related to GST deposit amounts? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that the FIR itself indicates a dispute over a sum of Rs. 1,29,179/- after accounting for his professional charges of Rs. 15,000/-. He emphasizes his readiness to repay this amount in installments within six months, suggesting a civil dispute rather than criminal intent. He relies on the principle that anticipatory bail can be granted in cases where the dispute is primarily financial and the accused is cooperating. Revenue/State's contention: The State, through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposes the grant of anticipatory bail, highlighting the serious charges of cheating and misappropriation of public funds (GST). The prosecution's case is that the petitioner deliberately defrauded the informant by not depositing the full GST amount and fabricating reasons for the shortfall.
Sections Cited
Section 438, Section 379, Section 420
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 2 22-03-2025
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Rampur Police Station Case No. 27 of 2023, dated 09.01.2023, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 379/420 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the informant, who is the owner of a company, having GST No. 10AJNPS7134F129, entrusted the work of deposit of GST amount to the petitioner on behalf of the company and paid a sum of Rs. 2,78,000/- to the petitioner, but the petitioner deposited only a sum of Rs.
2/4 1,33,821. The professional charge of the petitioner, as decided, was Rs. 15,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner has committed cheat and criminal breach of trust and misappropriated the amount paid by the informant to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,44,179/-. It has further been stated that the petitioner gave the ground for non-payment of the entire amount that he had to pay bribe to the department; whereas, the process of deposit of GST amount is being done through online and there is no question of payment of bribe to the department.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the First Information Report, it is clear that Rs. 15,000/- was the remuneration which was to be paid to the petitioner by the informant. After adjusting the amount of Rs. 15,000/-, a sum of Rs. 1,29,179/-, at best, be only due to the informant. Without prejudice to the right and contention of the petitioner, the petitioner is ready to return Rs. 1,29,179/- to the informant in installments within a period of six months from today.
Regards being had to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the offer made by the petitioner, I am inclined to grant the petitioner 3/4 provisional bail, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall return a sum of Rs. 1,29,179/- to the informant in installments within a period of six months from today.
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 provisional 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, Gaya, in connection with Rampur Police Station Case No. 27 of 2023, subject to the conditions (i) laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (ii) the first instalment of Rs. 29,179/- shall be paid by the petitioner by way of bank transfer/bankers cheque prepared in favour of the informant and receipt thereof shall be produced before the learned District Court at the time of furnishing bail bonds, and (iii) the rest five equal instalments of Rs. 20,000/- each shall also be paid by the petitioner by way of bank transfer/bankers cheque prepared in favour of the informant.
It is made clear that after payment of the entire amount by 4/4 the petitioner to the informant, the learned District Court shall be at liberty to confirm the provisional bail granted to the petitioner by this Court.
It is further made clear that if the petitioner is not knowing the bank account number of the informant, he will contact the informant on his mobile number mentioned in the First Information Report and will seek the bank account number for the purpose of depositing the amount.
In case the petitioner fails to pay/deposit any of the instalment mentioned herein above, the informant shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps in the matter.
This application is, accordingly, disposed.
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.