Amarjeet Yadav @ Amarjeet Kumar Yadav vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Amarjeet Yadav. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the petitioner's submission that he is engaged in the sugar and grocery business, holds a GST registration certificate, and pays GST and Income Tax. The Court found these submissions to be significant in the context of the allegations. The reasoning appears to be that the petitioner's legitimate business activities and tax compliance might indicate a lack of criminal intent or a misapplication of the Excise Act to his situation. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks, subject to furnishing bail bonds and sureties, and adhering to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Amarjeet Yadav, apprehended arrest in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No. 51 of 2019, registered under Section 30(b)(c) of the Bihar Excise Act. The accusation involved the recovery of 175 kg of sugar from his 'Bathan'. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner conducts a sugar and grocery business under the name M/S Sonal Traders, holds a GST registration certificate, and pays GST and Income Tax. He contended that the case was lodged with false allegations and an ulterior motive. The State was represented by the learned A.P.P.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's apprehension of arrest in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No. 51 of 2019, registered under Section 30(b)(c) of the Bihar Excise Act, is justified, considering the recovery of sugar from his premises? (Mixed question of law and fact, potentially touching upon the intent and application of the Bihar Excise Act). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he is a legitimate businessman dealing in sugar and grocery, possesses a GST registration, and pays taxes. He asserted that the case was falsely lodged with ulterior motives, implying the recovery of sugar does not constitute an offense under the Excise Act in his context. Revenue's Contention: The State, represented by the learned A.P.P., did not explicitly record any specific arguments beyond their role in opposing the anticipatory bail application. The judgment does not record any specific counter-arguments or reliance on legal provisions by the State.