Surendra Yadav vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The Court considered the nature of the accusation, the backdrop of the case, the completion of the investigation, and the filing of the charge sheet. Crucially, the Court noted that the petitioner is only the driver of the truck. The Court also took into account the petitioner's pre-trial detention. The reasoning suggests that the petitioner's role as a mere driver, coupled with the ongoing investigation and charge sheet filing, made him eligible for bail. The Court did not delve deeply into the merits of the GST fraud allegations but focused on the petitioner's limited involvement and custodial period. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Surendra Yadav, is the driver of a truck carrying iron pallets. The complainant, General Manager of Maa Kali Allianz Udyog Private Limited, alleged that the petitioner arrived with 35 tons of iron pallets without a transporter's bilty or weighing slip. An FIR was lodged stating that the goods were transported using a fake E-way bill, despite no order being placed with Sneha Mineral Company, Orissa, and no transaction occurring. The petitioner was arrested for an offense under Section 420 of the IPC. The charge sheet has been filed, and the dispute appears to involve a transaction between the complainant's firm and Sneha Mineral Company.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as a driver, is liable for the alleged fraudulent transportation of goods under Section 420 of the IPC, considering his role and the alleged fraud involving fake E-way bills and GST credit. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner claims innocence and false implication, stating he is merely a driver for the transport company. He argues that the charge sheet itself indicates a part payment was made by the complainant to Sneha Mineral Company, contradicting the FIR's claim of no order being placed. He contends that the investigation is not properly directed and that he gained nothing from any dispute between the companies. Furthermore, the prosecution has not presented any material showing loss to the complainant. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argues that the complainant's firm did not place an order, yet it was fraudulently shown as having placed an order and received goods, which were actually sold to another firm. The State contends that a fake invoice was generated to wrongly avail input tax credit under GST, thereby cheating the complainant.