Deepak Kumar Singh @ Bitu Balwant @ Deepak Singh vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioners, Deepak Kumar Singh and Pratap Kumar Singh, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that he gave Rs. 18,800/- to petitioner No. 1 as a loan. Subsequently, petitioner No. 1 transferred Rs. 9,12,799/- to the informant's account. The informant then returned a cheque of Rs. 8,94,000/- to the petitioners after deducting some amount. Later, the informant discovered his account was frozen, leading to the lodging of the instant case. The petitioners argued that the FIR was lodged after a significant delay of 2 months and 14 days without plausible explanation. Petitioner No. 1, proprietor of Maa Bhawani Enterprises with a valid GST registration, supplied construction raw material to the informant, a contractor, for which the cheque was issued. Petitioner No. 2 has no connection to the transaction and was allegedly implicated due to being a cousin of petitioner No. 1. Both petitioners claim clean antecedents.

Held

The Court considered the nature of the accusation and the arguments presented. For petitioner No. 1, the Court refused the prayer for anticipatory bail, implying that the allegations, despite the GST registration and the nature of the transaction, were serious enough to warrant further investigation and potential custodial interrogation. The reasoning for this refusal is not explicitly detailed beyond 'considering the nature of accusation'. However, for petitioner No. 2, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail. The reasoning for allowing bail to petitioner No. 2 was based on the submission that he had no concern with the alleged transaction and was made an accused merely because he is the cousin brother of petitioner No. 1. The Court found merit in the argument that his implication was likely due to his relationship rather than any direct involvement in the alleged offences. The operative direction was to enlarge petitioner No. 2 on bail upon his arrest or surrender within six weeks, subject to furnishing bail bonds and sureties, and adhering to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR (2 months and 14 days) without a plausible explanation warrants anticipatory bail for the petitioners, particularly concerning the alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether petitioner No. 1, a proprietor with a valid GST registration involved in supplying construction raw materials, is entitled to anticipatory bail given the nature of the transaction and the alleged offences? 3. Whether petitioner No. 2, who has no direct involvement in the alleged transaction and is allegedly implicated due to familial relation, is entitled to anticipatory bail? Contentions of the Petitioners: The petitioners argued that the delay in lodging the FIR is unexplained and raises doubts about the prosecution's case. They contended that petitioner No. 1 is a legitimate businessman operating under a valid GST registration, and the transaction involved the supply of construction raw materials, with the cheque issued for the payment. They further argued that petitioner No. 2 has no connection to the alleged transaction and has been falsely implicated due to his relationship with petitioner No. 1. They also claimed clean antecedents. Contentions of the State: The State, represented by the A.P.P., opposed the bail application. The informant's counsel also vehemently opposed the bail application.