Narendra Kumar Jain vs. State Of Jharkhand
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Narendra Kumar Jain, Director of Asan Steels Private Ltd., is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 33 of 2026. The case involves allegations related to the receipt of Rs. 65,00,000/- by the petitioner's company from the informant, Surendra Kumar Nathani. The petitioner claims that the funds were for the purchase of ingots and billets, and goods equivalent to the amount paid were collected by one Bimal Poddar. The petitioner states he never met or negotiated with the informant. An FIR was lodged, and the petitioner received a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS. The petitioner's son and wife have already been granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner alleges that the informant has suppressed the fact that a complaint case (Complaint Case No. 51350 of 2026) was filed earlier with similar allegations, and that the informant has closed his GST registration while alleging forged GST bills from the petitioner.
Held
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner did not deny the credit of the amount to his company's account. However, it was observed that the informant had suppressed the fact that a complaint case (Complaint Case No. 51350 of 2026) was filed earlier with similar allegations. Furthermore, documents from the GST portal indicated that the informant had closed his GST account, which was in contrast to his allegation of receiving forged GST bills from the petitioner. The Court also took into consideration that the petitioner's wife and son had already been granted anticipatory bail. In light of these facts and circumstances, the Court found it inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned court within three weeks and be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S, 2023.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 33 of 2026, considering the allegations of non-supply of goods after receiving payment and the alleged fabrication of GST invoices. Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner's company received Rs. 65,00,000/- from the informant for the purchase of goods, and the goods were collected by Bimal Poddar. - The petitioner never met or negotiated with the informant. - A complaint case (Complaint Case No. 51350 of 2026) with similar allegations was filed prior to the FIR, and this fact was suppressed by the informant in their counter-affidavit. - The informant has closed his GST registration, which contradicts his allegation of receiving forged GST bills. - The petitioner's son and wife have already been granted anticipatory bail. - The petitioner is cooperating with the investigation. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The amount was credited to the petitioner's company account, but the supply was not made. - Witnesses have supported the prosecution's case. - Anticipatory bail should be rejected.
Sections Cited
Section 35(3), Section 482(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
( 2026:JHHC:27776 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No. 3713 of 2026
Narendra Kumar Jain, aged about 57 years, son of late Ratan Lal Jain, resident of F-501, Maruti Life Style, Kota-Gudhiyari Road, Mahoba Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Gudhiyari, District-Raipur, State-Chattisgarh, -492009, Director, Asan Steels Private Ltd. ...... … Petitioner
Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Surendra Kumar Nathani, aged about 71 years, son of Ramvilash Nathani, resident of Chemical Industrial Pvt. Ltd. 2E, Phase-11, Subhashree Apartment, P.O.and P.S. Bariatu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834009 .…. … Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner
:Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Sr. Advocate
: Ms. Shreesha Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, A.C. For the Informant : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Sonal Jaiswal, Advocate
02/ 15.09.2026: Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 33 of 2026, registered under sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), (3) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the friend of the petitioner Pranjal Agrawal met the petitioner in January 2023 and told him that one Bimal Poddar who is a C.A by profession has some person ready to purchase some Ingot, Billet etc. and wants to sell it later at a desired time so as to earn profit, and as such, wants to pay advance money for the same. He next submits that the petitioner's company namely, Asan Steels Pvt Ltd received in its company account Rs. 25,00,000/-, Rs. 30,00,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- totaling to Rs. 65,00,000/- from the informant. He also submits that however, the petitioner has never met the ( 2026:JHHC:27776 )
owner of Nathani Chemical nor had any negotiations with him. He next submits that goods equivalent to the amount paid earlier were picked up by Bimal Poddar himself from the premises of Asan Steel Pvt. Ltd on 12/04/2025 and 13/04/2025. He submits that in this ground F.I.R has been lodged and petitioner has received notice under section 35(3) of BNSS and filed reply to the same by way of annexure-2 series. He then submits that the son and wife of the petitioner have also been implicated in this case and they have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned AJC-XIII-cum-Spl. Judge, CBI Ranchi in A.B.P. No. 884 of 2026. He next submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation and false allegations are made in the counter affidavit filed by the informant that GST invoice number is fabricated. He next submits that counter affidavit has been filed on 07.08.2026 and prior to that a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 51350 of 2026 has been filed on 03.7.2026. By way of referring paras 10 and 11 of the complaint case, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that same allegations are there and that fact has been suppressed in the counter affidavit filed by the informant on 07.08.2026. He next submits that if the allegations are there that is being investigated by the learned court in the complaint case. He further submits that informant has closed his GST registration and on the other informant is alleging that petitioner has given forged GST bill. He next submits that petitioner is cooperating in the investigation and will cooperate in the investigation. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsels for the State and informant jointly oppose the prayer and submit that amount has been credited in the account of the petitioner’s company and inspite of that supply has not been made. They
( 2026:JHHC:27776 )
submit that witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.
The petitioner herein has not denied the credit of the said amount in the account of the company. Allegation is made subsequently on the basis of challan it has been claimed that goods have been supplied to the informant and for that allegation informant has already filed complaint case being Complaint Case No. 51350 of 2026 on 03.7.2026 wherein counter affidavit which has been filed by the informant on 07.08.2026 and that fact has been suppressed in the counter affidavit by the informant. The documents filed in the supplementary affidavit by the petitioner from the website of the GST portal, it transpires that informant has closed his GST account and on the other hand he is alleging that petitioner has given forged GST bill, that is subject matter of the complaint case. The wife and son of the petitioner have also been implicated in this case and they have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned AJC-XIII-cum-Spl. Judge, CBI Ranchi.
In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the above named, petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned court within three weeks from today and in the event of his surrender / arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 33 of 2026, subject to conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of B.N.S.S, 2023. Dt.15.09.2026
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi-
Reproduced from the public record of the Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.