2016 (10) TMI 751 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 85(1)(b)(c) (e)(f)(g), 85(2)(g), 85(4) and 85(6) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - scope of application - refusal/grant of protection to applicants - Held that - Since the scope of these applications is grant / refusal of protection to these two applicants, wider issues are not gone into by this Court. It is left only by observing that - on one hand, there is very serious narration in the complaint against the Company viz. Dharmpal Satyapal Ltd., quantifying the alleged fraud to the tune of approximately two hundred crores of rupees, the Directors and other responsible persons of the said company are accused Nos.1 to 9 in the FIR in question and still, not only there is no motivation on the part of the State to bring them to justice, but there is complete facilitation qua them at their terms. It is for the State to take a call. Suffice it to hold that the present applicants need to be protected against this exercise of powers by the State and the investigating agency. These applications therefore need to be allowed. It is also noted that, pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the questioning of these applicants is already done by the Authorities. Considering the totality this Court finds that, custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required. Their judicial custody would also not be required in the facts of the case. These applicants therefore need to be granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Application allowed - applicants released on bail on furnishing personal bonds of ₹ 10,000/- each and one surety of the like amount subject to some conditions.

Summary

Issues:
Anticipatory bail applications; Allegations under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003; Alleged victimization; Red carpet treatment to principal accused; Custodial interrogation necessity; Protection against exercise of powers by the State and investigating agency.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two anticipatory bail applications filed by the accused (No.23 and 27) in connection with a case involving offenses under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 85(1)(b)(c)(e)(f)(g), 85(2)(g), 85(4), and 85(6) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The applicants argue that they are being victimized by the State authorities, who are allegedly showing favoritism towards the principal accused (accused Nos.1 to 9). The applicants claim innocence and highlight discrepancies in the treatment of the accused in the charge-sheet. They argue that the provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act are being misused to coerce them.

The State vehemently opposes the bail applications, stating that the investigation is ongoing and all involved will be apprehended as necessary. The State emphasizes that the applicants should not benefit from the investigating officer's focus on the principal accused. The State refers to previous court orders related to the case to support its stance against granting anticipatory bail to the applicants.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court acknowledges the serious allegations against the principal accused and the lack of clarity regarding their status in the case. The Court notes that custodial interrogation of the applicants may not be necessary based on previous court orders and the nature of the allegations. The Court observes a disparity in treatment between the applicants and the principal accused and concludes that the applicants need protection against the State's actions and the investigating agency's conduct.

The Court decides to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants, considering that their questioning by authorities has already taken place and custodial interrogation is deemed unnecessary. The bail is granted on specific conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and non-interference with the legal process. The Court clarifies that its observations should not influence the trial court's proceedings and that the conditions of a previous court order do not automatically apply to this case. The rule is made absolute, permitting direct service of the order.

In conclusion, the Court grants anticipatory bail to the applicants, emphasizing the need to protect them from potential misuse of power by the State and the investigating agency, given the circumstances of the case.