Pintu Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Pintu Kumar, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with PS Case No. 360 of 2018, registered under Sections 420, 471, 349, and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code. The case involves allegations of cheating the public by advertising prizes like costly vehicles and cash. The accused allegedly collected amounts from individuals by presenting them as lucky winners and charging them sales tax, registration tax, and GST. The petitioner claims innocence, stating he is not named in the FIR but was implicated based on the confessional statement of a co-accused. He also asserts that no witnesses support the allegations against him, no incriminating material was recovered from his possession, and he has no criminal antecedent. He further points out that similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail.

Held

The Court considered the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and the submissions made by his counsel. While the allegations involve cheating and the collection of taxes like GST, the Court noted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and his involvement surfaced during the investigation based on a co-accused's confession. The Court also took into account the petitioner's claim of innocence, lack of direct incriminating material recovered from his possession, absence of criminal antecedents, and the fact that similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail. Based on these considerations, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where an accused is not named in the FIR, their involvement is based on subsequent investigation and confession of co-accused, and there is a lack of direct evidence or recovery, anticipatory bail may be granted, especially when similarly placed individuals have received similar relief. The Court directed the petitioner to be released on bail upon arrest or surrender within six weeks, subject to furnishing bail bonds and sureties, and adhering to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of cheating and the nature of the offenses under the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He argues that his name is not in the FIR but appeared during the investigation based on a co-accused's confession. He highlights the lack of direct evidence, no recovery from his possession, and no criminal antecedents. He also relies on the fact that similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail by co-ordinate benches of this Court. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State or Opposite Party regarding the petitioner's bail application.