Rakesh Kumar Garg Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1211 of 2024

Rakesh Kumar Garg, S/o Late Sri Sumitra Nandan Garg, R/o House No.- 46/670, Gali No.- 04, Bangalipara, P.O. & P.S.Sarkanda, Town & District- Bilaspur (M. Corp), Chattisgarh

¶3

… … Petitioner

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ------CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, Advocate Mr. Shubham Choudhary, Advocate Ms. Samiksha Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III -------

¶5

09/13.09.2024 Heard Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A.-III for the State.

¶6

The petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2019, corresponding to Complaint Case No. 1230 of 2021 (G.R. No. 261/2021).

¶7

It has been alleged that the premises of Rakesh Kumar Garg (petitioner) and M/s. Tirupati Enterprises were inspected by the informant but the same were not found and in the registration certificate the permanent address was mentioned as resident of House No. 46/670, Gali No. 04, Bangalipara, Sarkanda, Bilashpur, Chhattisgarh and for the registration of M/s. Tirupati Enterprises the address was shown as F.S. Tower, 2nd Floor, Chaibasa and the business place was taken on rent by the petitioner. It has been alleged that on enquiry, the co-accused Kamal Ray had disclosed that the business place was taken on rent by him. It has been alleged that on inquiry the said Kamal Ray had disclosed that he does not know the petitioner whereas in the registration certificate the business place has been mentioned as F.S. Tower, 2nd Floor, Chaibasa which has been taken on rent by Kamal Ray.

¶8

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was Kamal Ray who was the mastermind of the entire operation and in fact the agreement would reveal that it was Kamal Ray who had given the office to Rakesh Kumar Garg who is the proprietor of M/s. Tirupati Enterprises and it was Kamal Ray who had deposited the online fee of Rs. 100/- for registration of VAT and GST of the firm through Bank of India account held in the name of Kamal Ray. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Kamal Ray has been granted bail by this Court in B.A. No. 4668 of 2021 and he has drawn the attention of the Court to the submission advanced by the learned State Counsel in the case of Kamal Ray wherein it has been admitted that it was Kamal Ray who was the mastermind of the entire fraudulent exercise. Learned counsel, therefore, in the aforesaid premises has submitted that the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A.-III for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and has submitted that it was in fact the present petitioner who is the proprietor of M/s. Tirupati Enterprises who was instrumental in causing a loss of Rs. 2,25,64,665.30/- to the State Government. It has also been submitted that though the petitioner was given notice u/s 41 Cr.P.C. but he had not appeared before the Investigating Officer.

¶10

It appears that Kamal Ray has been granted bail by this Court as noted above in B.A. No. 4668 of 2021. The submission of the learned State Counsel in the case of Kamal Ray seems to suggest that it was he who was the mastermind of the entire fraudulent exercise and the agreement further reveals that the office which was taken by Kamal Ray was given to the petitioner and it was Kamal Ray who had deposited the online registration fee for VAT and GST.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid facts, therefore, I am

¶12

-2-

¶13

inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks and on his surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur in connection with Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2019, corresponding to Complaint Case No. 1230 of 2021 (G.R. No. 261/2021), subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This application stands allowed.

¶14

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶15

A. Sanga/-

¶16

-3-

Rakesh Kumar Garg v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Garg v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jogendra Tiwari Vs Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement

Diwakar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

T Raghav Rao Vs the State of Jharkhand

Triveni Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Ohdar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand