Md. Irfan Alam vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, MD. IRFAN ALAM, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Kundwa Chainpur P.S. Case No. 55 of 2020, registered for offences under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant, a ward member of Panchayat Balua Gua Bari, alleged that the petitioner received Rs. 12 Lakh via cheque for supplying equipment and materials for pipe work and water tank installation under the Nal Jal Scheme but failed to supply the materials, thereby defalcating the amount. The petitioner, proprietor of R.K. Enterprises, claimed to have supplied materials worth Rs. 12,06,369/- and received only Rs. 12 Lakh. He contended that the case was lodged to recover the balance amount, annexing GST bills as proof of supply. He also stated there was no written contract for the work under any government scheme.

Held

The Court, having heard the learned counsel for both parties and considering the facts and circumstances, was inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that he had supplied materials worth Rs. 12,06,369/- and received Rs. 12 Lakh, with the GST bills supporting his claim of supply. The Court also noted the petitioner's assertion of no written contract. The Court directed the petitioner to surrender in the court below within six weeks and, upon arrest or surrender, to be enlarged on bail of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The specific issue of whether the petitioner committed criminal breach of trust under Sections 406 and 409 IPC was not definitively decided, but the Court's inclination to grant bail suggests a prima facie view that the allegations did not warrant custodial interrogation at this stage.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the allegations of criminal breach of trust under Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he is innocent and falsely implicated. He claimed to have supplied materials worth Rs. 12,06,369/- and received Rs. 12 Lakh, with the case being a ploy to recover the balance amount. He supported his claim with GST bills (Annexure-2) and asserted the absence of a written contract. Revenue's contention: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer for bail.