Anup Kumar Kewat @ Anup Kewat vs. State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Anup Kumar Kewat, is an accused in Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.118 of 2025, registered for offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. The allegation is that while working in the informant's hotel, the petitioner received payments from customers but did not transfer them to the hotel's account, allegedly defalcating Rs.35,19,122/-, and subsequently left the hotel. The petitioner claims the allegations are false and that the informant used private accounts to receive payments to avoid GST and other statutory tax liabilities. The petitioner asserts he has made substantial payments to the informant, his relatives, and the hotel via UPI as directed. He also contends that the grounds of arrest were not provided in the arrest memo, citing Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Another. The petitioner has been in custody since February 26, 2026, and undertakes to cooperate with the trial.

Held

The Court considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by both parties. While the detailed legal arguments regarding the grounds of arrest and the GST evasion were presented, the operative part of the judgment focuses on granting bail. The Court directed the petitioner to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi. Conditions for bail include cooperating with the trial, furnishing his mobile number and a photocopy of his Aadhar Card, and undertaking not to change his mobile number during the trial. The judgment does not explicitly address the legality of the arrest or the GST evasion issue as a definitive finding, but rather grants bail considering the overall circumstances and the petitioner's undertaking. No specific issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's arrest and subsequent remand are illegal due to the non-compliance of the constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest, as per the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Another? 2. Whether the petitioner's claim that he was receiving payments on behalf of the hotel as per the informant's instructions, to evade GST and other taxes, is valid, or if the State's contention that GST has already been paid on the money received by the petitioner is correct? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argues that the arrest and remand are illegal due to the failure to provide the grounds of arrest, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Another. He also contends that the informant used private accounts to receive payments to avoid GST and other statutory tax liabilities, and that he has made substantial payments. The case is alleged to be foisted to pressure him and frustrate his claims. State's Arguments: The State, along with the informant, opposes the bail. They point to the hotel's function prospectus and other documents to argue that GST has already been paid by the hotel on the money received by the petitioner, thus refuting the petitioner's claim that the money was received to evade GST.