JAY KUMAR SINGHANIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Income Tax department. The petitioners are accused in a case registered under Sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 353/34 I.P.C.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners has submitted that petitioner Jay Kumar Singhania is no way connected or concerned with the business of petitioner, Kamal Kumar Singhania; that he is the proprietor of a firm, namely, Trade Wings and has no concern with the firm, namely, Trade Friends, the place where the alleged raid by the Income Tax authorities had taken place; that the petitioners are the regular income tax payee and they never created any hindrance or used criminal force against the officials of the Income Tax department in discharge of their official duty; that if the allegations are presumed to be true then there is no explanation as to why the F.I.R. was lodged at 6.30 p.m. on 24.10.2013 whereas occurrence alleged to have been taken place at 12.45 p.m.; that the police force was present at the place of occurrence and had witnessed the violence but they did not arrest the accused persons which shows the falsity of the allegation; that in fact the employees of the Trade Friends were assaulted by the informant and his team due to which they sustained injuries; that no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners as they neither assaulted the informant or his team member and petitioner, Jay Kumar Singhania was not present at the time of occurrence, hence, offence under Section 353 is also not made out against them; that the income tax authorities had conducted the survey on the day of occurrence itself which continued till 6.14 a.m. on 25.10.2013 as per Annexure -3; that the petitioners were also summoned by the income tax authorities and they attended the income tax office on 29.10.2013 on the basis of the summon issued on 25.10.2013; that a Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 3036/2013 has been pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 26.10.2013 whereby and whereunder warrant of arrest had been issued against the petitioners and the police without following the law provided in Section 41A, Cr.P.C. are bent upon arresting the petitioners even though they are willing to co -operate with the police; that the petitioners are reputed businessmen and there is no chance of their absconding; that this is a fit case for granting protection under Section 438, Cr.P.C.

(3.) FROM perusal of the injury report it is evident that the injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and there was no repetition of blows, hence, offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not made out. But, the informant and other members of the team sustained injuries which shows that assault and criminal force were used and survey could be done only after arrival of the police officials and the documents were also snatched from the informant which was subsequently returned and there is specific allegation against both the petitioners. The informant was authorised to conduct the survey in the premises under the Income -tax Act. In view of the above, I do not deem it fit to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected. The petitioners are directed to surrender in the court below within a period of one week from the date of this order.