Washim Raza Khan vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Facts

The applicant, Washim Raza Khan, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 458 of 2022, registered under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC. The informant alleged that the applicant induced him to invest approximately ₹51 Lakhs in his firm by assuring high returns of 7% profit. The informant was to pack articles provided by the applicant's firm. However, the articles were not sent for packing, and the informant later discovered the applicant lacked GST registration at the time of receiving the funds. Subsequently, some articles were sent with forged documents/bills. Non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicant.

Held

The Court rejected the anticipatory bail application. The Court noted that the prosecution alleged the applicant entered into an agreement to induce the informant to deposit approximately ₹51 Lakhs by assuring good returns, despite lacking GST registration. The applicant allegedly failed to fulfill his part of the agreement and, when pressed, sent articles with forged bills and documents. The Court considered the gravity of the alleged offences, the position of the offender, and the ramifications on society. The issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants against the applicant was also a significant factor. Consequently, the Court found that the applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the absence of GST registration at the time of entering into an agreement vitiates the agreement and constitutes an offence under the IPC, particularly in the context of an anticipatory bail application? The applicant argued that GST registration is not a prerequisite for entering into a contractual agreement and that the FIR was lodged after the applicant issued an Arbitration Notice, suggesting a contractual dispute. The applicant also contended that Non-Bailable Warrants were issued post the filing of the anticipatory bail application. The State argued that the applicant's GST registration was cancelled in September 2021, while the agreement was made in April 2022. Furthermore, the bills and documents provided were allegedly forged, and Non-Bailable Warrants had already been issued against the applicant.