Jyoti Kumar Diwakar vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Jyoti Kumar Diwakar, a civil contractor and proprietor of M/s Diwakar Engineering Works, is seeking anticipatory bail. He claims to have undertaken repair and renovation work for the informant's flat, submitting a bill of Rs. 19,18,019.20, which included GST. A payment of Rs. 14,38,010 was made, leaving a balance of Rs. 4,80,009.20 unpaid. The petitioner alleges that a false case has been lodged against him due to this non-payment and that he had previously filed a complaint case apprehending mischief from the informant. The State, however, contends that the allegations involve inducing the informant to invest in a railway contract and not paying profits.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the fact that Annexure-3, a document submitted by the petitioner, indicated a bill of Rs. 19,18,019.20 for work done, which included a GST amount. The Court noted that only Rs. 14,38,010 had been paid, with the remaining amount outstanding. Furthermore, the Court considered that the petitioner had filed a complaint case prior to the registration of the present FIR. In light of these facts and circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioner was directed to surrender within two weeks and be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with Chira Chas P.S. Case No. 154 of 2025, registered under Sections 318(4), 316(2), and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argues that he is a civil contractor who completed work for the informant, submitted a bill including GST, and has not received the full payment. He claims the FIR is false, filed to avoid payment, and that he had previously filed a complaint case. State's Argument: The State opposes the bail, alleging that the petitioner induced the informant to invest in a railway contract and failed to pay profits, forming the basis of the criminal case.