Vinay Vinod Kumar vs. State Of West Bengal

Facts

The petitioner, Vinay Vinod Kumar, was employed as a Manager, Accounts and Finance, by a company. He was offered to resign in 2021. Subsequently, a criminal case was registered against him in 2022, alleging wrongful refusal to repay a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- to the company. The petitioner then filed complaints with the Director General of Goods and Services Tax and the Income-tax Department against the company, alleging tax evasion. Following these complaints, the present case was registered against the petitioner, alleging a demand of Rs. 50,00,000/- from the company. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with this new case, arguing that it was filed in retaliation for his complaints to the tax authorities. The State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the materials on record, noting that the petitioner had been offered resignation in 2021, and subsequently, a case was registered against him for allegedly refusing to repay a loan of Rs. 4,50,000/-, for which he had been granted anticipatory bail. The Court observed that the present case was registered alleging a demand of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Crucially, the Court noted that in the interregnum, the petitioner had lodged complaints with tax authorities alleging tax evasion by the company. The Court found that the possibility of false implication on this score could not be ruled out. Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not necessary. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, appearing before the jurisdictional court to pray for regular bail within four weeks, and meeting the investigating officer once a week until further orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, considering the allegations of demanding Rs. 50,00,000/- from the company and the prior history of complaints filed by the petitioner against the company with tax authorities? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the current criminal case was initiated in retaliation for his complaints of tax evasion lodged against the company with the Goods and Services Tax and Income-tax Departments. He argued that his prior resignation offer and the subsequent registration of a case alleging non-repayment of a loan were part of a pattern to harass him. He also highlighted that he had been granted anticipatory bail in the earlier case. Therefore, he submitted that the present case was likely a false implication and custodial interrogation was not necessary. State's Arguments: The State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, without elaborating on specific legal grounds or precedents relied upon in the judgment.