Manoj Kumar Singh Alias Manoj Singh Alias Manoj Kr Singh vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the submissions of both counsels and the facts presented. While the specific allegations of GST fraud and forgery were noted, the Court found it to be a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The reasoning appears to be based on the petitioner's defense of the allegations being false and fabricated, the lack of documentary evidence presented by the prosecution regarding the entrustment of identity documents, and the discrepancies pointed out by the petitioner. The Court did not delve deeply into the merits of the GST fraud allegations but focused on the immediate need for protection from arrest. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where the allegations are contested and the petitioner offers cooperation and security, anticipatory bail may be granted. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon arrest or surrender within six weeks, subject to furnishing cash security of Rs. 10,000/-, bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties, cooperation with the investigation, and appearance before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed. The Court also required the petitioner to furnish his mobile number and Aadhar Card, undertaking not to change his mobile number.

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar Singh, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Jharia (Borragarh) P.S. Case No. 264 of 2022, registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations stated that the petitioner used the informant's identification documents (Pan Card, Aadhar Card) and a blank cheque to obtain a GST number and conducted transactions amounting to Rs. 40,63,000/-. The petitioner contended that these allegations were false, citing discrepancies in the informant's claims regarding a previous court case and the location of the business on the GST portal. The petitioner also undertook to cooperate with the investigation and furnish security.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of using forged documents to obtain a GST number and transacting a significant sum, and the petitioner's defense that the allegations are false and fabricated. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the allegations in the FIR were false. He pointed out inconsistencies in the informant's claims regarding a previous writ petition (W.P.C. No. 439 of 2009 vs. W.P.C. No. 952 of 2009) and stated there was no evidence of entrustment of his identity documents. The petitioner also highlighted that the GST portal indicated business operations in Deoghar, while he resided in Dhanbad, suggesting fabrication. He offered to furnish security and cooperate with the investigation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Spl. P.P. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.