Pappu Pandey vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Pappu Pandey (the petitioner) apprehending arrest in connection with Katkamdag P.S. Case No. 33 of 2025. The petitioner is accused of offences under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, including cheating victims through online gaming and preparing forged GST bills. The petitioner's name emerged from the confessional statement of a co-accused. The State, while opposing the bail, admitted that there is no material to suggest any monetary transaction from the petitioner's account.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The primary reasoning for this decision was the absence of any material evidence directly linking the petitioner to monetary transactions related to the alleged offences. While the petitioner's name was mentioned in the confessional statement of a co-accused, the Court found this insufficient to deny anticipatory bail, especially in light of the State's admission regarding the lack of evidence of monetary transactions from the petitioner's account. The Court directed the petitioner to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks and, upon surrender or arrest, to be released on bail with specific conditions regarding bail bonds, sureties, and the nature of the bailers. The issue of the petitioner's involvement in preparing forged GST bills was not expressly decided but was implicitly considered in light of the lack of monetary transaction evidence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the absence of direct evidence linking him to monetary transactions or the alleged forgery of GST bills, with his involvement only indicated through the confessional statement of a co-accused? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that his name appeared solely from the confessional statement of a co-accused, and there is no other material evidence against him. He emphasized the lack of any direct link to the alleged offences. State's Contention: The State opposed the anticipatory bail application. However, the State conceded that the petitioner's name surfaced from the confessional statement of a co-accused and admitted that there was no material to suggest any monetary transaction from the petitioner's account.