9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 9 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxGrant of anticipatory bail - Offences u/s 85(1)(c) of the GVAT Act, 2003, as well as Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66(c)(d) of the I.T. Act, 2000 - one M/s.Usmani Marketing who had a particular TIN Number and whose owner was accused No.1-Mohamad Umar Haji Usmanbhai was involved in the activity of preparing bogus bills and was further involved in not depositing the amount of VAT for the period from 01st July, 2002 to 12th June, 2015 and the TIN number allotted to the said firm by the office of the Commercial Tax Commissioner was misused - Held that - There was no gainsaying that the applicant was doing mason work in the firm. He was a Peon. According to his case, he was not knowing computer. It appears that TIN number of the firm which was misused through one another Aaiyamali Farukhi. Looking to the total operation of facts furthered by the investigational material available, it is difficult to appropriate any major role at this stage for the applicant to view his conduct filled with criminality so as to deny him the anticipatory bail. Application allowed.
Issues:
1. Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail. 2. Allegations of involvement in offenses under various sections of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, Indian Penal Code, and the I.T. Act. 3. Consideration of the facts presented in the First Information Report (F.I.R) and investigation papers. 4. Application of principles from previous court judgments for granting anticipatory bail. 5. Grant of anticipatory bail with specific conditions. Analysis: Issue 1: The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Issue 2: The allegations against the applicant included offenses under Sections 85(1)(c) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, as well as Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 66(c)(d) of the I.T. Act, 2000. Issue 3: The court examined the contents of the F.I.R. and investigation papers, noting that the applicant was a peon in the firm and appeared to have a minor role in the alleged misuse of the TIN number. Issue 4: The court referenced judgments like Siddharam Satllingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar to determine the parameters for granting anticipatory bail. Despite objections from the Additional Public Prosecutor, the court inclined to grant bail to the applicant-accused. Issue 5: The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant-accused with specific conditions, including cooperating with the investigation, not obstructing the process, providing residence details, surrendering passport if applicable, and appearing before the police station at specified times. The court also allowed the investigating officer to seek remand if necessary, clarifying that the applicant's presence before the Magistrate for such applications would be considered as being in judicial custody. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal issues involved, the court's considerations, and the final decision to grant anticipatory bail with specific conditions to the applicant-accused.
|
