[2026:JHHC:18337] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.5606 of 2026 ------ Anand Dey, aged about 41 years, S/o Late Nitya Gopal Dey, R/o Kharnagarha, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-23-06-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Saraidhela P.S. Case No.60 of 2022 corresponding to C.O. Case No.01 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Section 409, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 132 (1) (b), 132 (1) (c), 132 (1) (e) and 132 (1) (i) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services (JGST) Act, 2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has fraudulently availed the input sales tax credit without in fact, making any sell in the month of January and thereby escaping the tax liability and penalty of about Rs.2,34,91,509.48/- on 08.12.2018 under the Jharkhand Goods and Services Act. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-12 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India reported in (2023) 2 SCC 621 and submits that in that case, a sum of Rs. 11 crores and odd was shown as cess by the respondent without the proof of manufacture of zarda and it was done only to indicate the projected value of more than Rs. 15 crores and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considering that the punishment provided under Section 132(1) (l) (i) may extend to five years and fine and as the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had already undergone incarceration for more than four months and considering that the evidence to be tendered by the respondent in that case would essentially be documentary and electronic evidence and ocular evidence will be through official witnesses and released the appellant before it on bail. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, the maximum punishment for the petitioner will be three years and the value of tax liability escaped is less than 500 lakhs. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case but no witness has been examined as yet. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 07.01.2026 as has been mentioned in para-01 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Spl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the facts of this case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Economic Offences-cum-JMFC, Dhanbad in connection with Saraidhela P.S. Case No.60 of 2022 corresponding to C.O. Case No.01 of 2026 with the condition that he will co- operate with the trial of the case, furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-23.06.2026-Animesh/