Pradeep Kumar And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. D. K. Chakraverty, learned counsel for the petitioner in B. A. No. 3185 of 2020, Mr. Gaurang Jagodia, learned counsel for the petitioners in B. A. Nos. 395 and 397 of 2020; Mrs. Shweta Singh, Mr. Sardhu Mahto and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.Ps for the State.

Since all these bail applications arise out of a common FIR, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

The petitioners are accused in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 183 of 2018 corresponding to G. R. No. 1860 of 2018 registered for the offences under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 (B) of I.P.C. and Sections 132 (1) (b), 132 (1) (c) and 132 (1) (1) of the G.S.T. Act 2017.

The informant is the authorized officer under the GST Act 2017. It has been alleged that during inquiry of Sarvashree Krishna Enterprises whose proprietor is Ankit Kumar Sharma, it was detected that the total input tax credit of Rs. 37,16,02,595/- was claimed by the said company and tax of Rs. 37,15,95,942/- was paid for the sale amount of Rs. 210,26,02,820/- by the said company for the period July 2017 and Rs. 37,16,02,595/- was dishonestly used for claiming forged input tax credit. At the time of registration, Aadhar card, Pan card and Voter id were uploaded for opening of saving account in Bank of India, Telco Town, A Road Branch. It has further been alleged that the address of the proprietor Ankit Kumar Sharma was shown as House no. 789, Zone No. 1B, Birsanagar Telco, Jamshedpur. The mobile number is in the name of Pankaj Singh who is the proprietor of Sarvashree P. K. Traders, who was also given benefit of irregular input tax credit.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been implicated on the basis of the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Pankaj Kumar Singh and Satya Prakash Singh. It has further been stated that the petitioners are neither the partners nor the owners or agents of Sarvashree P. K. Traders. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody since 01.10.2019.

Learned A.P.P.s have opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. On consideration of the case diary, paragraph 46 contains the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Satya Prakash Singh. This witness works as a Clerk (Munshi) in the Civil Court. He has stated that while making an affidavit he became close to Pradeep Singh, Dilip Singh and Abhijeet Singh. They wanted his help to form an N.G.O. for which certain documents were necessary and he was also given the lure of money. He has further stated that he had taken pan card, voter card etc. from his relative Pankaj Singh and handed it over to the accused. Later on, he came to know about embezzlement committed by the accused. Paragraph 47 of the case diary contains the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Pankaj Singh in which he has stated that he had handed over Pan card, Voter id and Aadhar card in original to the accused persons. They had disclosed that he will be made a partner in the new company and he will get cash returns at the time of his daughter's marriage. He had also signed on some documents. Later on, he could came to know about the embezzlement of crores of rupees done by the petitioner. The confessional statement of Abhijeet Kumar, Pradeep Kumar (petitioner in B. A. No. 3185 of 2020) and Ashutosh Kumar (petitioner in B. A. No. 397 of 2020) have been mentioned in paragraph nos. 67, 68 and 69 respectively of the case diary. The statement of Rajesh Ranjan Ravi has been recorded in paragraph 20 of the case diary from which it appears that the mobile number 7903341127 is in his name, but is used by Pradeep Singh. He has also stated that he had twice gone to Kolkata with Abhijeet Singh and Pankaj Singh and had visited a small room which was disclosed by them to be their office.

The entire fraudulent activity therefore appears to have been orchestrated by Pradeep Singh, Dilip Singh, Abhijeet Singh and Ankit Sharma.

In view of the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners in B. A. No. 3185 of 2020 and B. A. No. 397 of 2020, I am not inclined to grant bail to them, therefore, their prayer for bail is hereby rejected.

So far as petitioner - Ashutosh Kumar @ Rana (petitioner in B. A. No. 395 of 2020) is concerned, he appears to be the son of co-accused Dilip Singh and his name does not find place either in the statements of Rajesh Ranjan Ravi nor in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Pankaj Singh and Satya Prakash Singh. In such circumstances, therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in B. A. No. 395 of 2020.

Regard being had to the above, the petitioner - Ashutosh Kumar @ Rana (petitioner in B. A. No. 395 of 2020) is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Jamshedpur in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 183 of 2018 corresponding to G. R. No. 1860 of 2018