Brij Kishore Singh vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court allowed the prayer for pre-arrest bail. Considering the nature of the accusation and the petitioner's clean antecedent, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail. The reasoning hinges on the petitioner's claim of innocence and lack of direct involvement in the alleged forgery and illegal transportation, coupled with his assertion that the vehicle was given to a transporting company. The Court did not delve into the merits of the forgery allegations themselves but focused on the petitioner's individual culpability and circumstances for the purpose of granting bail. The operative direction is that the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail upon arrest or surrender within eight weeks, subject to furnishing bail bonds and sureties, and adhering to the conditions laid down under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Facts

The petitioner, Brij Kishore Singh, owner of a truck bearing registration no. BR06GF-8264, apprehends arrest in connection with Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 477 of 2026. The case was initiated based on a complaint by the Assistant State Tax Commissioner, Kishanganj. During verification of documents for coal transportation, the GST bill was found to be forged. The vehicle's GST registration was in Meghalaya, but the tax invoice mentioned a place of business in Assam. The driver allegedly disclosed that the coal was loaded at the instance of the owner for transportation to Araria, Bihar. The allegations include forgery of GST documents and illegal transportation of coal, causing loss to the government exchequer. The petitioner claims innocence, stating he was unaware of any violation and had given the vehicle to a transporting company. He also claims clean antecedents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as the owner of the vehicle used for alleged illegal transportation of coal with forged GST documents, is liable for the offenses under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), specifically sections 338, 336(3), 340(2), 318(4), 111(3), 111(4), and 3(5), warranting pre-arrest bail? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He claims he was not involved in forging the GST documents and was unaware of any such violation. He asserts that he is merely the owner of the seized vehicle and had entrusted it to a transporting company. He also highlights his clean antecedent record. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail.