Rajesh Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Rajesh Kumar (proprietor of M/s Krishna Sales Corporation), his son Aniket Kumar, and staff member Rahul Kumar, are seeking anticipatory bail. They are implicated in a case registered under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleges that M/s Krishna Sales Corporation accepted a tender for supplying goods to hostels, received Rs. 20,19,409/- (including GST), but only supplied goods worth Rs. 5,50,359/-. Despite reminders, the agency neither supplied the remaining goods nor refunded the money. The petitioners deny issuing any such cheque and claim they have been falsely implicated. They are willing to deposit the disputed amount of Rs. 11,64,329/- in installments.
Held
The Court allowed the prayer for anticipatory bail for the petitioners. The reasoning was based on the petitioners' willingness to deposit the disputed amount of Rs. 11,64,329/-. The Court directed that upon arrest or surrender within six weeks, the petitioners would be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount. Crucially, the bail was granted subject to specific financial conditions: Rs. 5,00,000/- was to be deposited in cash at the time of furnishing the bail bond, and the remaining Rs. 6,64,329/- was to be deposited in two equal installments within six months. These payments were made subject to the final outcome of the case. The Court explicitly stated that the order was passed without going into the merits of the case, solely for the purpose of granting bail. Failure to comply with these directions would empower the lower court to cancel the bail.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The petitioners argued that they have been falsely implicated and that no cheque was issued as alleged. They expressed willingness to deposit the disputed amount of Rs. 11,64,329/- in installments, indicating a desire to resolve the financial aspect of the dispute. They relied on the principle that anticipatory bail can be granted in cases where the accused is ready to cooperate with the investigation and make good the financial loss. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, did not present any specific arguments against the grant of anticipatory bail in the provided text. The judgment does not record any arguments made by the State in opposition to the bail plea.
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 2 25-07-2024 Heard learned counsels for the parties.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case in brief is that the District Welfare Officer, Bhagalpur, issued tenders through Gem Portals for supply of goods to the hostels and the tenders were accepted by an agency, namely M/s Krishna Sales Corporation, Bhagalpur and they also received a sum of Rs. 20,19,409/- including GST but supplied goods worth only Rs. 5,50,359/-.
2/3 Thereafter, in spite of several reminders, they neither supplied the goods nor refunded the money.
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that Petitioner No. 1 is proprietor of M/s Krishna Sales Corporation, Bhagalpur, Petitioner No. 2 is son of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 3 is staff of the agency and they have been falsely implicated in this case. No such cheque as alleged has been issued by the petitioner. It is further submitted that at this stage, without admitting their guilt, petitioners are ready to deposit the disputed amount amounting to Rs. 11,64,329/- (Rupees eleven lacs sixty-four thousand three hundred twenty nine), in easy installments.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is allowed.
Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, let the above named petitioners be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, in connection with Kotwali (Jogsar) P.S. Case No. 1082 of 2023, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, along with 3/3 the following terms and conditions: A. At the time of furnishing bail-bond Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs) shall be deposited through cash in the Nazarat of the Civil Court, Bhagalpur. B. Rest amount i.e. Rs. 6,64,329/- (Rupees six lacs sixty four thousand three hundred and twenty nine) shall be deposited in the Nazarat of Civil Court, Bhagalpur, in two equal installments within a period of six months from the date of furnishing bail-bond. C. The aforesaid payment shall be subject to the final outcome of the case. D. If petitioners fail to comply the aforesaid direction of this Court, the Court below is free to cancel the bail-bond of the petitioners.
It is made clear that without going into the merit of the case, the aforesaid order has been passed only for the purpose of grant of bail.
shashank/- (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.