Navneet Kumar Ankit vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioners, Navneet Kumar Ankit and Pankaj Singh, are seeking anticipatory bail in Shashtrinagar P.S. Case No. 811 of 2022. The prosecution alleges that Petitioner No. 1, with Petitioner No. 2's assistance, created a forged rent agreement of the informant and obtained a GST number and proprietorship of 'Ad Idea Creation' in his name. The informant claims to have given Petitioner No. 1 money and documents to open a bank account for the firm, but it was opened solely in Petitioner No. 1's name. Petitioner No. 1 allegedly introduced himself as the informant's business partner, embezzled funds, and conducted illegal activities. It is also alleged that Petitioner No. 1, a part-time employee of the informant's company, shared customer purchase order details with competitors, causing financial loss.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, including the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding their alleged false implication, lack of criminal antecedents, and the nature of the allegations. While the prosecution alleged forgery, cheating, conspiracy, and embezzlement, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. The reasoning appears to be based on the petitioners' assertion of innocence and the general nature of allegations against Petitioner No. 2, coupled with the absence of prior criminal history. The operative direction was to enlarge the petitioners on bail upon their arrest or surrender within six weeks, subject to furnishing bail bonds and sureties, and adhering to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of forgery, cheating, criminal conspiracy, and embezzlement under Sections 418, 419, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners contend they have been falsely implicated. They assert that Petitioner No. 1 is the registered owner of 'Ad Idea Advertisements' and was never an employee of the informant. They also claim Petitioner No. 2 faces general and omnibus allegations. The petitioners state they have no criminal antecedents. Revenue/State's Argument: The State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.