Jay Prakash Mishra vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Jay Prakash Mishra, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. case No. 262 of 2020, registered for offences under Sections 466, 467, 468/34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner and a co-accused obtained the informant's savings account, Aadhar Card, and Pan Card on the pretext of providing a job. They then allegedly opened bank accounts in different banks without the informant's knowledge and conducted transactions amounting to crores of rupees. The petitioner contends he has been falsely implicated, denies any financial transactions with the informant or through his accounts, and states that the alleged current accounts were opened in the name of 'career point', requiring its PAN and GST documents, which would have been impossible without the informant's knowledge. He also disputes the mobile numbers attributed to him and notes that similarly situated co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the submissions made by the petitioner, including the alleged false implication, the lack of direct financial transactions, the procedural inconsistencies regarding the opening of accounts in the name of 'career point' requiring specific documents like PAN and GST, and the fact that similarly situated co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail. The Court also noted the petitioner's clean antecedent. While the State opposed the bail, the Court found sufficient grounds to grant interim protection. The operative directions were that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within four weeks, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

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 forgery and cheating under the Indian Penal Code? The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated and that there are no financial transactions directly or indirectly involving him or his blood relations with the informant. He emphasized that the alleged current accounts were opened in the name of 'career point', which would necessitate the use of its PAN and GST documents, making it improbable to have been done without the informant's knowledge. The petitioner also highlighted that the mobile numbers mentioned in the FIR are incorrect or not associated with him for receiving communications related to the alleged accounts. Furthermore, he pointed out that a similarly situated co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail and that he has a clean antecedent. The State, through the learned APP, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.