Rajesh Saw vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Rajesh Saw, apprehends arrest in a case registered for offences under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations are that in 2021, twenty-two agriculturists sold paddy and wheat crops to the petitioner, who failed to pay them the price. The petitioner claims innocence, stating no such occurrence took place and he has been falsely implicated. He asserts his firm is GST registered and he had no business dealings with a co-accused's firm, M/s Rajesh Galla Bhandar, after his own business closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He also highlights that similarly situated co-accused were granted anticipatory bail and that he has no criminal antecedents.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court observed that there is a money transaction dispute between the parties. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The Court explicitly rejected the prayer for bail, which appears to be a contradiction within the order. However, the operative part clearly grants bail. The Court did not explicitly discuss any specific GST provisions, but the petitioner mentioned GST registration as part of his defence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with Paraiya Bazar P.S. Case No. 203 of 2021, registered for offences under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, considering the allegations of non-payment for agricultural produce and the petitioner's defence. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he is innocent, falsely implicated, and that no such occurrence took place. He stated his firm is GST registered and he had no business with the co-accused's firm after his business closed due to the pandemic. He also submitted that similarly situated co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail and he has no criminal antecedents. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail.