Neeraj Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Summary: The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed Neeraj Agrawal’s first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with Crime No.79/2026 registered at Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh, for offences under Sections 318(2), 317(5), 3(5), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution case arose from the interception on 13.03.2026 of two trucks carrying M.S. scrap material at Pusour Petrol Pump. The drivers allegedly failed to produce valid invoices and stated that the material had been loaded from Masodi Enterprises, Balangir (Odisha), for delivery to Mahamaya Steel, Punjipathra, Raigarh. The applicant submitted that he was neither owner nor partner of Mahamaya Steel, that the transaction was supported by GST invoices and E-way bills, and that no person claimed ownership of or alleged theft of the seized scrap. The State opposed bail, submitting that investigation had disclosed prima facie material concerning manipulation of GST documents and illegal transportation and that custodial interrogation was necessary. The Court noted that the seller and purchaser admitted the transaction, GST invoices and E-way bills were generated, no person claimed ownership or alleged theft, the investigation remained in progress and the applicant had no criminal antecedents. Without commenting further on the merits, the Court granted anticipatory bail, subject to execution of a personal bond and one solvent surety and specified conditions.
Cases Discussed: No judicial precedent is cited or discussed in the supplied judgment/order.
Background and Submissions
The first anticipatory bail application was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the applicant, who apprehended arrest in connection with Crime No.79/2026 registered at Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.), for offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 317(5), 3(5), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
According to the prosecution, on 13.03.2026, acting upon information, the police intercepted two trucks stationed at Pusour Petrol Pump carrying M.S. scrap material in suspicious circumstances. During inquiry, the drivers allegedly failed to produce valid invoices and informed the police that the scrap material had been loaded from Masodi Enterprises, Balangir (Odisha) for delivery to Mahamaya Steel, Punjipathra, Raigarh. On the basis of the memorandum statements of the drivers and subsequent enquiry, the applicant was alleged to be involved in the transaction. FIR bearing Crime No.79/2026 was consequently registered against the applicant and other co-accused.
The applicant submitted that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. It was specifically submitted that he was neither the owner nor the partner of Mahamaya Steel, Punjipathra, whose partnership firm consisted of Ritik Agrawal and Ghanshyam Agrawal. According to the applicant, Mahamaya Steel had lawfully purchased the M.S. scrap material from Masodi Enterprises, Bargarh (Odisha), and the goods were transported through valid GST invoices and E-way bills.
The applicant further submitted that there was no complaint from any person claiming ownership of the seized scrap material or alleging that it was stolen. It was submitted that both the seller and purchaser had admitted the transaction and that the GST authorities had also been informed, who stated that, at the most, proceedings under Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act, 2017 could be initiated for any alleged irregularity relating to the E-way bill.
It was therefore contended that, even if the entire prosecution case were accepted on its face value, the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 318(2) and 317(5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were not made out against the applicant. The applicant also relied upon the fact that investigation was still in progress, he had no criminal antecedents and had cooperated with the investigating agency.
On the other hand, the State opposed the application and submitted that sufficient material had been collected during investigation indicating the applicant’s involvement in the alleged offences. According to the State, the applicant was actively connected with the transaction relating to transportation of the M.S. scrap material and the investigation had revealed prima facie material regarding manipulation of GST documents and illegal transportation of the goods. It was submitted that custodial interrogation was necessary for a fair and effective investigation.
High Court’s Consideration and Finding
The High Court heard the parties and perused the case diary. Considering the facts and circumstances and the nature of the allegations, the Court observed that the prosecution case primarily arose from the alleged transportation of M.S. scrap material and registration of the FIR on the allegation that the material was stolen and that there was manipulation in GST E-way bills.
The Court noted that both the seller and purchaser admitted the transaction, GST invoices and E-way bills were generated, and no person had come forward claiming ownership of the seized scrap material or alleging theft thereof.
The Court also took note of the fact that investigation was still in progress and that the applicant had no criminal antecedents. The Court observed that the dispute, prima facie, also involved issues relating to compliance under the GST Act.
Without making any further comments on the merits of the case, the Court held that it was inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
The decision concerns a GST-related criminal allegation involving E-way bills and transportation of goods. TaxGuru has also published material concerning judicial treatment of GST E-way bill issues, including E-Way Bill – GST Authority Vs Judiciary and Section 129 & Section 130 of CGST Act, 2017. Related TaxGuru coverage has also considered case laws on Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Anticipatory Bail Granted Subject to Conditions
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the MCRCA and directed that, in the event of arrest of Neeraj Agrawal in connection with Crime No.79/2026 registered at Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.), he shall be released on anticipatory bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing one solvent surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer.
The relief was made subject to the following conditions:
a. He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court.
b. He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
c. The applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
d. The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his Aadhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the Aadhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.
e. He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.
Thus, the Chhattisgarh High Court granted Neeraj Agrawal anticipatory bail in Crime No.79/2026, while expressly refraining from making further comments on the merits of the case.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.79/2026 registered at Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 317(5), 3(5), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The prosecution’s case is that on 13.03.2026, acting upon information, the police intercepted two trucks stationed at Pusour Petrol Pump carrying M.S. scrap material in suspicious circumstances. During inquiry, the drivers allegedly failed to produce valid invoices and informed the police that the scrap material had been loaded from Masodi Enterprises, Balangir (Odisha) for delivery to Mahamaya Steel, Punjipathra, Raigarh. On the basis of the memorandum statements of the drivers and the subsequent enquiry, it was alleged that the applicant was involved in the transaction. Consequently, FIR bearing Crime No.79/2026 was registered against the applicant and other co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 317(5), 3(5), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the investigation is presently in progress.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is neither the owner nor the partner of Mahamaya Steel, Punjipathra; rather, the partnership firm consists of Ritik Agrawal and Ghanshyam Agrawal. It is submitted that Mahamaya Steel had lawfully purchased the M.S. scrap material from Masodi Enterprises, Bargarh (Odisha), and the goods were being transported through valid GST invoices and E-way bills. There is no complaint from any person claiming ownership of the seized scrap material or alleging that the same was stolen. It is further submitted that both the seller and the purchaser have admitted the transaction and the GST authorities have also been informed, who have stated that, at the most, proceedings under Sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act, 2017 can be initiated for any alleged irregularity relating to the E-way bill. Thus, even if the entire prosecution case is accepted on its face value, the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 318(2) and 317(5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not made out against the applicant. The investigation is still in progress, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and he has cooperated with the investigating agency. The applicant craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and undertakes to abide by all directions and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, and there is no likelihood of his absconding.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the non-applicant/State opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and submitted that during the course of investigation, sufficient material has been collected indicating the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offences. It is submitted that the applicant was actively connected with the transaction relating to the transportation of the M.S. scrap material, and the investigation has revealed prima facie material regarding manipulation of GST documents and illegal transportation of the goods. Since the investigation is still in progress and custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for a fair and effective investigation, the applicant is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, it appears that the prosecution case primarily arises out of the alleged transportation of M.S. scrap material and the subsequent registration of the FIR on the allegation that the material was stolen and that there was manipulation in the GST E-way bills. It is not in dispute that both the seller and the purchaser admit the transaction, the GST invoices and E-way bills were generated, and no person has come forward claiming ownership of the seized scrap material or alleging theft thereof. The investigation is still in progress, the applicant has no criminal antecedents, and the dispute, prima facie, also involves issues relating to compliance under the GST Act. Therefore, without making any further comments on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant.
7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed, and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant– Neeraj Agrawal, in connection with Crime No.79/2026 registered at Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.), on his executing a personal bond and furnishing one solvent surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, he shall be released on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:-
a. he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court.
b. he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
c. he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
d. the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his Aadhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the Aadhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.
e. he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future
