Ajay Khalkho vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. The reasoning was based on the applicant's claim of innocence and his alleged limited involvement in the fraudulent transaction. The production of a GST Bill/Invoice was considered as evidence of him being a bona fide shopkeeper. The Court found that the applicant's role, as presented, did not warrant denial of anticipatory bail. The ratio decidendi is that a person claiming innocence and demonstrating a legitimate business activity, with no direct involvement in the core fraudulent transaction, may be granted anticipatory bail, provided they undertake to cooperate with the investigation and trial. The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon arrest or surrender within six weeks, subject to furnishing bail bonds and other conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C., including submitting Aadhaar card photocopy and keeping his mobile number active.

Facts

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by Ajay Khalkho (the applicant/petitioner) in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No. 119 of 2023. The case is registered for offences under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant claims innocence, stating he was not involved in the alleged fraudulent transaction of selling a government job. His alleged involvement is limited to selling articles purchased with money fraudulently obtained by a co-accused from the informant. The applicant has submitted a GST Bill/Invoice to demonstrate he is a bona fide shopkeeper. The State (opposite party) opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering his alleged limited involvement in the transaction and his status as a bona fide shopkeeper? The petitioner argued that he is innocent and not involved in the fraudulent transaction of selling a government job. He contended that his only connection is that some articles were purchased from his shop using money fraudulently obtained by a co-accused. He further submitted that he is a bona fide shopkeeper and produced a GST Bill/Invoice as proof. He undertook to cooperate with the investigation and participate in the trial. The State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.