Gida Jaydip vs. State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioners, Gida Jaydip Nanku Bhai and Vala Kuldeep Gabharubhai, are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Barsol P.S. Case No. 14 of 2025, registered under Sections 406, 420, 506, 34, and 120(B) of the IPC. The FIR alleges that the informant entered into an agreement with the proprietor of M/s Bapa Sitaram Enterprises, Mr. Arvind Bhai Madhani, for the supply of base oil. The firm raised a bill, which was paid by the complainant to Mr. Madhani. The grievance is that Mr. Madhani allegedly did not deposit the Goods and Services Tax (GST) amount. The petitioners claim they are merely agents of the said firm/company.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The Court observed that the FIR indicated an agreement between the informant and the proprietor of M/s Bapa Sitaram Enterprises, Mr. Arvind Bhai Madhani. The supply was made, the bill was raised by Mr. Madhani, and payment was received by him. The sole allegation against the petitioners was that they happened to be agents of the company/firm, and the grievance was specifically about Mr. Madhani not depositing the GST amount. Given this factual matrix, the Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioners were directed to surrender before the learned court within three weeks and, upon surrender/arrest, to be released on bail with specified surety amounts, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners, as agents of M/s Bapa Sitaram Enterprises, can be held liable for the alleged non-deposit of GST by the proprietor, Mr. Arvind Bhai Madhani, under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC? Petitioner's argument: The petitioners contend that they are only agents of the firm and that the primary transaction and the alleged non-deposit of GST occurred between the informant and the proprietor, Mr. Arvind Bhai Madhani. They argue that their role as agents does not make them directly responsible for the proprietor's alleged failure to deposit GST. Revenue/State's argument: The State and the informant jointly oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail, submitting that there are allegations of non-deposit of the GST amount, implying that the petitioners, as agents, may have a role or knowledge in this regard.