Vinod Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Vinod Kumar, apprehends arrest in connection with Araria P.S. Case No. 1083 of 2019, registered for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, and 120(B) of the IPC. The prosecution alleges that the informant was invited to tender for gym set materials for schools and colleges, with a total value of Rs. 5,49,856. The informant supplied materials worth Rs. 3,49,99,271 and submitted a bill for Rs. 1,99,99,548. The District Programme Officer issued a payment order. Subsequently, the informant submitted another bill for Rs. 1,49,99,688, but the petitioner allegedly refused to accept it and cancelled the order. The petitioner is also accused of threatening the informant with implication in SC/ST cases if he pursued the dues, constituting cheating and forgery.

Held

The Court considered the submissions made by the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel argued that the case was fabricated to recover GST. The Court noted the petitioner's contention that the matter involved supply of gym sets based on MLA recommendations and funds, and the cancellation of the order was due to policy changes and the District Magistrate's directions. The petitioner also claimed they acted on instructions and did not commit any offence. Given these submissions, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. The Court directed that in the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks, the petitioner be released on bail upon 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.

Key Issues

1. Whether the criminal case registered against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law, intended solely to coerce payment of GST, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose any offence made out against the petitioner, as contended by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the FIR was falsely lodged to pressurize them into paying GST. They contended that the entire matter pertained to the supply of gym sets based on MLA recommendations and funds, and the cancellation of the order was due to a change in policy and directions from the District Magistrate. The petitioner asserted that they acted in accordance with directions and did nothing suo motu, and no offence was made out against them. The State's arguments were not explicitly recorded in the provided text.