Gajendra Jatav vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court found that prima facie, the applicant was involved in cheating the complainant by misusing his bank account for online gaming transactions and alleged GST evasion, causing loss to the government exchequer. The allegations also indicated cyber and financial fraud. The Court noted that the offenses alleged are serious, punishable with imprisonment up to life, with a minimum of five years. It was observed that the FIR was registered in 2025, charge-sheet filed against co-accused, and the applicant remained absconding, leading to proceedings under Section 335 of the BNSS. Considering the nature and gravity of allegations, the applicant's role, material collected, and non-cooperation with the investigation, the Court concluded that no grounds were made out for granting anticipatory bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Gajendra Jatav, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 136/2025 registered at Police Station Dhanpuri, District Shahdol. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, fraudulently opened a bank account in the complainant's name and misused it for depositing and withdrawing funds. Specifically, it was alleged that in November 2024, a co-accused offered the petitioner a 20% commission for facilitating bank accounts for GST-related payments. Subsequently, an Axis Bank account was opened in the complainant's name, and the petitioner allegedly received its credentials, deposited gaming proceeds, and earned a commission. The petitioner claimed false implication, absence of his name in the FIR, and that the main accused had been granted bail. The State opposed the bail, citing cyber and financial fraud, and loss to the government exchequer due to GST evasion.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of conspiracy, cheating, cyber fraud, and financial fraud involving GST evasion and loss to the government exchequer? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant contends he has been falsely implicated, lacks direct incriminating connection to the alleged offense, and his name is not in the FIR, unlike co-accused Deepak and Shashank. He highlights that the main accused, Shashank, has already been granted regular bail by this Court. The allegations against the applicant surfaced only during the investigation. Respondent's (State) arguments: The State opposes the application, asserting that the applicant, in connivance with co-accused, cheated the complainant by misusing his documents to open a bank account for online gaming transactions and GST evasion, causing loss to the government. The State emphasizes the gravity of cyber and financial fraud committed.