Mukesh Singh vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioners, Mukesh Singh and Kashinath Singh, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No. 102 of 2018, registered under Sections 420/120 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners took coal from the informant but failed to pay the consideration amount. The petitioners denied these allegations, claiming they did not take any coal. They further contended that the tax invoices presented by the informant were forged, as investigations revealed discrepancies in truck registration numbers and irregularities in the GST invoices, suggesting the informant fabricated documents to create a false case. The petitioners also argued that a prior complaint case against petitioner no. 1 was civil in nature and that they were ready to cooperate with the investigation.

Held

The Court, considering the facts and circumstances, was inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The reasoning appears to be based on the petitioners' submissions regarding the alleged forgery and fabrication of documents by the informant, as indicated by the Investigating Officer's findings concerning discrepancies in truck registration numbers and irregularities in the GST invoices. The Court viewed the dispute as potentially civil in nature and acknowledged the petitioners' willingness to cooperate with the investigation. The ratio decidendi is that where there are strong indications of the informant fabricating evidence and the dispute having civil undertones, anticipatory bail may be granted to ensure cooperation with the investigation. The petitioners were directed to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, appearance as and when noticed, and submission of mobile number and Aadhar card details with an undertaking not to change the mobile number.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of cheating and forgery related to a business transaction involving coal and GST invoices? The petitioners argued that the allegations were false, that they had not taken any coal, and that the informant had resorted to forgery by submitting false GST invoices and forged documents. They highlighted discrepancies found by the Investigating Officer regarding truck registration numbers and irregularities in the tax invoices. They also contended that the dispute was essentially civil and that petitioner no. 1 had no knowledge of a prior complaint case. They expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation. The State, through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.