Brajesh Prasad Tiwari vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court allowed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The Court noted that Kamal Ray, who was allegedly the mastermind and had rented the office which was then given to the petitioner, had been granted bail. The Court also considered the submission made by the State Counsel in Kamal Ray's bail application, which suggested Kamal Ray was the mastermind. The agreement also revealed 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, upon surrender, be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Facts

The petitioner, Brajesh Prasad Tiwari, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 21 of 2019. The case involved allegations of fraudulent registration of M/s. Balaji Enterprises. The premises of the enterprise were inspected but not found. The registration certificate listed a Chhattisgarh address for the proprietor, Brajesh Prasad Tiwari, but a Chaibasa address for the business place, which was allegedly rented by the petitioner. However, a co-accused, Kamal Ray, claimed he rented the business place and did not know the petitioner. The petitioner argued that Kamal Ray was the mastermind, having rented the office and paid the registration fees for VAT and GST. Kamal Ray had already been granted bail by the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail, considering his alleged role as proprietor of M/s. Balaji Enterprises and the alleged loss of Rs. 1,09,56,094/- to the State Government, and the fact that he did not appear before the Investigating Officer despite notice under Section 41 Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that Kamal Ray was the mastermind of the entire operation, having rented the business premises and paid the registration fees. He relied on the fact that Kamal Ray was granted bail by the High Court and that the State Counsel in Kamal Ray's case admitted Kamal Ray's role as mastermind. Therefore, the petitioner argued he deserved anticipatory bail. Revenue's argument: The State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, asserting that the petitioner, as the proprietor of M/s. Balaji Enterprises, was instrumental in causing a significant financial loss to the State. They also highlighted the petitioner's non-appearance before the Investigating Officer.