Bhulendra Kumar @ Santosh Patel vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioners, Bhulendra Kumar @ Santosh Patel and Situ Kumar @ Yas Raj Patel, are seeking anticipatory bail in PS Case No. 360 of 2018, registered for offences under Sections 420, 471, 349, and allied sections of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleges that the petitioners cheated the public by advertising prizes like costly vehicles and cash. Upon showing individuals as lucky winners, they allegedly collected significant amounts by charging sales tax, registration tax, and GST. The petitioners claim innocence, stating they are not named in the FIR and their inclusion is based on a co-accused's confession. They also assert that no witnesses support the allegations, no incriminating material was recovered from their possession, and they have no criminal antecedents. They further point out that similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, Bhulendra Kumar @ Santosh Patel and Situ Kumar @ Yas Raj Patel. The Court considered the nature of the allegations against the petitioners, which involved cheating the public by collecting GST and other taxes under the guise of prizes. The reasoning for granting bail appears to be based on the petitioners' claims of innocence, their lack of direct involvement as per the FIR, the reliance on a co-accused's confession for their implication, the absence of supporting witnesses, no recovery from their possession, and their clean criminal record. The Court also took note of the fact that similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail. The operative direction was that in the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks from the date of the order, the petitioners were to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of cheating and collection of GST and other taxes under Sections 420, 471, 349 of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argue that they are innocent and falsely implicated. They contend that they are not named in the FIR and their inclusion is based solely on the confessional statement of a co-accused. They further submit that no witnesses have supported the allegations against them, no incriminating material was recovered from their conscious possession, and they have no connection to any recovery. Additionally, they highlight their lack of criminal antecedents and the fact that similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail by coordinate benches of this Court. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State/Opposite Party regarding the bail application.