Rakesh Kumar Garg vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that Kamal Ray, a co-accused, had been granted bail, and the State's submission in that case suggested Kamal Ray was the mastermind. The Court also considered the agreement which revealed that Kamal Ray had rented the office and subsequently given it to the petitioner. Furthermore, it was noted that Kamal Ray had deposited the online registration fee for VAT and GST. In light of these facts, the Court found it inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned court below within four weeks and on surrender, to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Facts

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar Garg, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2019. Allegations suggest that the petitioner's business premises, M/s. Tirupati Enterprises, were inspected but not found. The petitioner's registered address was in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, while the business address was shown as F.S. Tower, 2nd Floor, Chaibasa, taken on rent. A co-accused, Kamal Ray, allegedly disclosed that he rented the business place and did not know the petitioner. However, the registration certificate indicated Kamal Ray rented the business place. The petitioner claimed Kamal Ray was the mastermind, provided the office to the petitioner, and paid the online registration fee for VAT and GST.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of causing a loss of Rs. 2,25,64,665.30/- to the State Government, considering the role of a co-accused, Kamal Ray, who has been granted bail and whose counsel admitted him to be the mastermind? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that Kamal Ray was the mastermind and had provided the office to the petitioner, M/s. Tirupati Enterprises, and had also paid the online registration fee for VAT and GST. The petitioner relied on the fact that Kamal Ray was granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 4668 of 2021, where the State counsel admitted Kamal Ray as the mastermind. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, submitting that the petitioner, as the proprietor of M/s. Tirupati Enterprises, was instrumental in causing a significant financial loss to the State Government. The State also noted that the petitioner had not appeared before the Investigating Officer despite receiving a notice under Section 41 of the Cr.P.C.