Ashok Jaiswal vs. State Of Karnataka
Held
The Court held that the applicants were not entitled to transit anticipatory bail. The Court noted that a substantial amount of money had been received by the applicants and that they had been served with a notice under Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. on February 7, 2025. The application was filed on February 20, 2025, and listed on March 21, 2025. The Court observed that the applicants had ample opportunity (over 1.5 months) to approach the competent court in Karnataka for relief but failed to do so. The apprehension of arrest, based on the alleged influence of the complainant and the service of a Section 41 notice, was deemed insufficient to warrant transit anticipatory bail. The Court found no impediment preventing the applicants from seeking anticipatory bail from the Karnataka High Court. Therefore, the application was dismissed.
Facts
The applicants, Ashok Jaiswal and others, entered into an agreement with Pancham Enterprises for the supply of two machines. The agreed price was Rs. 1,88,00,000/- including GST. The applicants received Rs. 1,53,35,243/-, with a balance of Rs. 35,44,757/- pending. One machine was supplied, but the other was not due to the outstanding payment. The applicants filed an application for transit anticipatory bail before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, apprehending arrest if they approached the Karnataka High Court, citing the influential status of the complainant's partner, Ms. Sapna. They had received a notice under Section 41 of the Cr.P.C. on February 7, 2025.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to transit anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, given their apprehension of arrest by the Karnataka authorities. Petitioner's arguments: The applicants argued that they have a strong apprehension of arrest if they approach the Karnataka High Court due to the influential status of the complainant's partner. They sought transit anticipatory bail to protect themselves from immediate arrest while pursuing appropriate remedies in Karnataka. They relied on the fact that a significant portion of the payment was received and that the dispute primarily concerns the supply of a machine due to non-payment. Revenue's arguments: The respondent (State of Karnataka) did not appear or present any arguments despite service of notice.
Sections Cited
Section 482, Section 41
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER This is first application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for seeking transit anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants entered into an agreement with Pancham Enterprises situated at Vijaypur, Karnataka for supplying two machines of drip irrigation pipe machine and HDPE pipe machine and thereafter, the price of Rs.1,88,0000/- including GST was quoted and agreed upon by the parties. Thereafter the applicant received Rs.1,53,35,243/- and the balance amount i.e. Rs.35,44,757/- was pending for payment at the end of Pancham Enterprises. As of now, one machine has been supplied and one has not been supplied due to the remaining amount has not been paid, this is the only allegation against the applicant. 1 MCRC-8752-2025 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11639 Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DA
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.