Abhijeet Kumar vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Abhijeet Kumar, is an accused in Telco P.S. Case No. 104 of 2018. The case involves allegations of illegal Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits being provided to businessmen, defrauding the government exchequer. Specifically, Pankaj Singh, proprietor of P.K. Traders, allegedly submitted fraudulent documents for GST registration, including a rent agreement that the landlord denied executing. Pankaj Singh also stated that his GST registration was obtained with the help of Satya Prakash Singh, and he himself had no business. Statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in a related case (G.R. No. 1860 of 2018) implicated the petitioner, alleging that documents like PAN and Voter cards were obtained from Pankaj Kumar Singh on the lure of money, and subsequently, crores of rupees were swindled by the accused, including the petitioner.

Held

The Court rejected the bail application of the petitioner, Abhijeet Kumar. The primary reason for this decision was the apparent involvement of the petitioner in the alleged fraud, as evidenced by statements recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in a related case (G.R. No. 1860 of 2018). These statements implicated the petitioner in obtaining documents from Pankaj Kumar Singh on the lure of money, which were subsequently used by the accused, including the petitioner, to swindle crores of rupees. The Court found that this evidence, coming to light, was sufficient to deny the bail application. No specific GST provisions were discussed in detail, but the underlying issue relates to fraudulent claims of ITC and evasion of government revenue. The operative direction was the rejection of the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's apparent involvement, as indicated by statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., warrants denial of his bail application (B.A. No. 5075 of 2020)? Petitioner's Argument: The judgment does not explicitly record any arguments made by the petitioner's counsel regarding the merits of the allegations or legal defenses. The focus appears to be on the court's assessment of the evidence presented. Revenue/State's Argument: The State, through the Assistant Public Prosecutor, likely argued for the rejection of the bail application based on the evidence suggesting the petitioner's involvement in the alleged fraud, particularly the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which directly implicated the petitioner in obtaining documents fraudulently for the purpose of swindling government funds.