Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Rajeev Kumar, approached the Patna High Court seeking anticipatory bail as he apprehended arrest in connection with Sohsarai P.S. Case No. 114 of 2022.

The FIR was registered for alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 353, 386, 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

As recorded in the order, the allegation against the petitioner was that he had allegedly used force and pressure to get GST. It was further alleged that the petitioner went to the official residence of the informant along with seven to eight co-accused persons and threatened him.

The petitioner disputed these allegations and asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the criminal case.

Issues Involved

The principal issues before the Patna High Court were:

  1. Whether the petitioner, who apprehended arrest in connection with Sohsarai P.S. Case No. 114 of 2022, was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
  2. Whether the allegations that the petitioner had allegedly used force and pressure to get GST and had gone to the official residence of the informant with seven to eight co-accused persons and threatened him justified denial of anticipatory bail.
  3. Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication, absence of criminal antecedents, and the surrounding dispute warranted protection from arrest.
  4. Whether the fact that, according to the petitioner, the informant could have taken penal action under GST law but instead opted to lodge an FIR was relevant while considering the anticipatory bail prayer.
  5. Whether the petitioner’s own complaint proceedings against the informant and others formed part of the circumstances relevant to the bail consideration.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that:

  • The petitioner was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case.
  • The petitioner had no criminal antecedents, as stated in paragraph 3 of the bail application.
  • The petitioner had been made an accused on the basis of the informant’s statement alleging that he had used force and pressure to get GST.
  • The said allegation and story were asserted to have been made merely to save the informant’s alleged misconduct and to divert the matter in controversy.
  • It was further submitted that the informant could also have taken penal action under GST law, but instead opted to lodge an FIR.
  • The petitioner had also filed Complaint Case No. 37 of 2022 under Sections 161, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(R)(S) of the SC/ST Act.

On these grounds, the petitioner sought protection from arrest by way of anticipatory bail.

Respondent’s Arguments

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail.

The State, therefore, resisted the grant of pre-arrest protection to the petitioner in connection with the offences alleged in the FIR.

Court Order / Findings

After hearing both sides and taking into consideration the facts placed before it, the Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The Court directed that, in the event of the petitioner’s arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from the date of the order, he should be enlarged on bail subject to the prescribed conditions.

The bail conditions directed by the Court were:

  • The petitioner was required to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 25,000.
  • The petitioner was required to furnish two sureties of the like amount each.
  • The bail bond and sureties were to be furnished to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Biharsarif, Nalanda.
  • The direction applied in connection with Sohsarai P.S. Case No. 114 of 2022.
  • The anticipatory bail remained subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed pre-arrest bail protection to the petitioner on the stipulated terms and conditions.

Important Clarification

This order is an anticipatory bail order and should not be read as a final adjudication on the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in the FIR.

The High Court considered the facts and circumstances presented for the limited purpose of deciding the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail. The order does not record a final determination of criminal guilt, innocence, or liability concerning the substantive allegations.

A further important clarification is that although the factual allegation recorded in the order refers to alleged use of “force and pressure to get GST,” the FIR offences expressly identified in the order were under Sections 147, 149, 353, 386, 420, 504 and 506 IPC. The uploaded order does not specify any particular section of the CGST Act, 2017 or Bihar GST Act as an offence forming part of the FIR under consideration.

The petitioner’s submission that the informant could have taken penal action under GST law but opted to lodge an FIR was an argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It should not be treated as an independent finding by the High Court that any specific GST penal provision was necessarily applicable.

The reference to Complaint Case No. 37 of 2022 under Sections 161, 341 and 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(R)(S) of the SC/ST Act also formed part of the petitioner’s submissions recorded in the order.

Sections Involved

·         Section 147 IPC – Punishment for Rioting

·         Section 149 IPC – Every Member of Unlawful Assembly Guilty of Offence Committed in Prosecution of Common Object

·         Section 353 IPC – Assault or Criminal Force to Deter Public Servant from Discharge of Duty

·         Section 386 IPC – Extortion by Putting a Person in Fear of Death or Grievous Hurt

·         Section 420 IPC – Cheating and Dishonestly Inducing Delivery of Property

·         Section 504 IPC – Intentional Insult with Intent to Provoke Breach of Peace

·         Section 506 IPC – Punishment for Criminal Intimidation

·         Section 438 CrPC – Direction for Grant of Bail to Person Apprehending Arrest

·         Section 438(2) CrPC – Conditions Attached to Anticipatory Bail

Sections Referred to in the Petitioner’s Separate Complaint

The petitioner also submitted that he had filed Complaint Case No. 37 of 2022 under:

  • Section 161 IPC
  • Section 341 IPC
  • Section 323 IPC
  • Section 3(1)(R)(S) of the SC/ST Act

These provisions were referred to in the context of the petitioner’s separate complaint and were not stated in the order as the substantive FIR offences for which anticipatory bail was sought in Sohsarai P.S. Case No. 114 of 2022.

Link to download the order -

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783402559_1187compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.