Ajit Kumar Rai vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the admissions made by the petitioner in his letter dated 01.10.2021 to the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Adityapur Circle. In this letter, the petitioner acknowledged the GST demand and stated his intention to pay the amount within four weeks after arranging funds. The Court considered this admission, along with the assertion by the informant and the State that the GST component was paid by the informant to the petitioner but not remitted to the department, as strong indicators of misappropriation and breach of trust. The Court found that these facts made the case unsuitable for granting anticipatory bail. The operative direction was for the petitioner to surrender before the Court below within two weeks. The issue of whether Section 409 IPC is applicable to a non-public servant was implicitly addressed by the Court's focus on the misappropriation and breach of trust elements, rather than strictly on the public servant status for the anticipatory bail decision.

Facts

This case involves an anticipatory bail application filed by Ajit Kumar Rai (Petitioner) in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 08 of 2022, registered under Sections 406, 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant's company, Auto Profile Limited, had a business relationship with the petitioner's company, supplying motor vehicle parts. The core allegation is that the petitioner's company defaulted in paying GST amounting to approximately Rs. 57,79,263.34 for the period 2017-22. The complainant claims to have paid the entire GST amount, but it was allegedly not remitted to the department by the petitioner, a fact discovered upon receiving a notice from the Deputy Commissioner of the State Tax, Adityapur Circle.

Key Issues

1. Whether the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, considering he is not a public servant (Question of law)? 2. Whether the petitioner is liable for the alleged default in payment of GST, and if so, whether the allegations constitute criminal misappropriation and breach of trust (Question of mixed law and fact)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that Section 409 IPC is inapplicable as he is not a public servant. He argues that the GST liability was to be paid by the complainant and that the current case has been lodged solely to shield the complainant's company. The petitioner also claims that the complainant's company has already paid GST amounting to Rs. 16,98,429.48. Revenue/State's Arguments (Assisted by Informant): The State and informant argue that the petitioner admitted his liability and intention to pay the GST amount in a letter dated 01.10.2021 to the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Adityapur Circle, wherein he promised to pay within four weeks after arranging funds. They assert that the informant had paid the complete amount, including the GST component, to the petitioner, which was not remitted to the department, constituting misappropriation and breach of trust. The petitioner has not denied receiving the GST component and admitted his obligation to pay.