2026:JHHC:14253 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI A.B.A. No. 533 of 2026 ---- Dilip Kumar Ramgopal Tibrewal @ Dilip Kumar Tibrewal, aged about 53 years, son of Ramgopal Tibra, resident of B-503, Mayfair Marvel, Ahimsa Marg, Off. Chincholi Bunder Road, Post Office Malad West, Police Station Malad West District Mumbai, Maharashtra 400064 .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Public Prosecutor ---- 2/11.05.2026 Heard learned counsels for petitioner and for State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Telco PS Case No.104 of 2018, corresponding to GR Case No.2027 of 2018, for offence registered under section 406, 420, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(e), 132(1)(i) of Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (JGST), pending in court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has not misappropriated any amount of Input Tax Credit. He submits that the petitioner has purchased goods from M/s P.K. Traders and other suppliers who were duly registered under the GST Act, 2017. He next submits that there is valid GSTIN certificate which creates a legitimate and reasonable presumption of authenticity and lawful business operations. He next submits that the petitioner is not the beneficiary of Input Tax credit and petitioner is the purchaser and in view of that, anticipatory bail may kindly be granted. He also submits that one co- accused has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in ABA 2026:JHHC:14253 2 No.1210 of 2024. 4. Learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that in paragraph no.206 of the supplementary case diary, it has come that the petitioner is proprietor of M/s August Overseas Private Limited and M/s Shagun Enterprises and there is allegation of misappropriating the Input Tax Credit to the tune of Rs.29,11,064/- (2,21,700+26,89,364). On these grounds, he submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected. 5. In paragraph no.206 of the case diary, the petitioner is found to be proprietor of M/s August Overseas Private Limited and M/s Shagun and there is allegation of misappropriation of Input Tax Credit to the tune of Rs.29,11,064/-. Thus, the argument of learned counsel so far anticipatory bail granted by the coordinate Bench to Renu Singh is concerned is on the facts and circumstances of that case and the case of the present petitioner is distinguishable from that case. Against Renu Singh for the same allegation there were two cases and in one of the case has been quashed by the High Court in Cr.M.P. No.311 of 2019 and the assessment order was also under challenge in W.P.(T) Nos.91 of 2021 and 44 of 2021 and in view of that, Renu Singh was granted anticipatory bail and as such the case of Renu Singh on that issue is distinguishable so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned. As such, this anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected, and consequently, A.B.A. No.533 of 2026 is, hereby, dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 11.05.2026 SI/