Nidhan Singh Kushwaha vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court allowed the applications for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the submissions made by the respective applicants, the nature of the accusation, and the quality of evidence. The applicants argued that they had not caused any loss to the government, that subsidies were directly deposited into beneficiaries' accounts, and that GST had been paid by one of the applicant's firms (M/s. Jai Gurudev) for the year 2020, with GST returns filed. The State and the Objector opposed the bail applications but failed to provide specific details regarding the loss caused to the State or any communication with the GST department for recovery. The Court found that the allegations regarding non-deposit of GST were not substantiated with concrete evidence at the stage of considering anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Court was inclined to extend the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.PC to the applicants, directing their release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, subject to certain conditions including availability for interrogation and non-involvement in similar offences.

Facts

Two applications were filed under Section 438 of the Cr.PC for anticipatory bail for applicants Nidhan Singh Kushwaha and Satish Jindal. They apprehended arrest in connection with Crime No. 39/2023 registered at Police Station Mahasamund for offences under Sections 409, 420, 120B, 34 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged based on an enquiry report alleging irregular withdrawal of subsidy amounts totaling Rs. 107.178 lakhs for construction of sheds under the National Agriculture Development Scheme. It was alleged that for a single farmer, construction was done by two firms, and GST was not deposited with the Central and State Governments. The applicants claimed they caused no loss to the government and that subsidy was directly deposited into beneficiaries' accounts, who then placed orders with firms. M/s. Jai Gurudev, the firm of applicant Satish Jindal, had paid GST for 2020, as reflected in a letter from the Director (Horticulture) and relevant GST returns were filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.PC in connection with Crime No. 39/2023, registered for offences under Sections 409, 420, 120B, 34 of the IPC, considering the allegations of irregular withdrawal of subsidy and non-deposit of GST. Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicants have not caused any loss to the Government or its beneficiaries. - Subsidy was directly deposited into beneficiaries' accounts, who then placed orders with the firms. - The firm M/s. Jai Gurudev (applicant Satish Jindal's firm) paid GST for the year 2020, and GST returns were filed, as evidenced by a letter from the Director (Horticulture) dated 17.11.2022. - There are no specific allegations regarding the quantum of loss caused or the manner of fraud committed by the accused. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The State and the Objector opposed the submissions for anticipatory bail. - The Objector failed to demonstrate the extent of loss caused to the State from the released subsidy and did not provide any letter sent to the GST Department for recovery. - The State submitted that information regarding GST authorities was not available in the case diary or the Departmental Enquiry Report.