2020 (9) TMI 884 - HC - GST

Grant of anticipatory bail - arrest of Superintendent working in the office of Commissioner of CGST, Rohtak - Demanding bribe - Evasion of GST - Section 120-B IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - The argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated on account of a raid conducted by him for checking the difference of 6% GST to be paid by the complainant is a matter of evidence - It is undisputed fact that co-accused Kuldeep Hooda was arrested on the next day, i.e. 15.8.2020 and a huge unaccounted amount of ₹ 64 lacs was recovered from his house. Therefore looking into the serious allegations against the petitioner, which suggest his active involvement in the case, custodial investigation of the petitioner is required - Petition dismissed.

Issues:
1. Grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving allegations of bribery and corruption.
2. Consideration of evidence including CCTV footage, recorded conversations, and recovery of marked currency notes.
3. Presence and actions of the petitioner on relevant dates as per the prosecution's case.
4. Argument of false implication raised by the petitioner's counsel.
5. Necessity of custodial interrogation for proper investigation.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of bribery and corruption. The petitioner, a Superintendent in the office of Commissioner of CGST, Rohtak, was accused of demanding and accepting bribes during a raid conducted on the complainant for alleged tax evasion. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated, emphasizing lack of direct evidence of bribe exchange.

2. The prosecution presented incriminating evidence, including CCTV footage showing the complainant handing over a polythene bag with money to the petitioner on 6.8.2020. Recorded conversations between the petitioner and the complainant on subsequent dates indicated demands for bribes and fixed amounts to be paid. Additionally, marked currency notes were recovered from the petitioner's car during a trap set by the CBI.

3. The petitioner's presence and actions on crucial dates were established by the prosecution. The petitioner was shown to be directly involved in demanding and accepting bribes, as evidenced by his interactions with the complainant and co-accused. The recovery of marked currency from the petitioner's car further linked him to the bribery scheme.

4. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated due to discrepancies in GST payment discovered during the raid. However, the court considered this argument as a matter of evidence to be assessed during the trial, rather than a ground for granting anticipatory bail.

5. Given the serious allegations and evidence pointing to the petitioner's active involvement in the bribery scheme, the court concluded that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary for a thorough investigation. The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need for custodial investigation to unravel the nexus between the accused and ensure a proper inquiry.

In conclusion, the court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner based on the compelling evidence presented by the prosecution, highlighting the petitioner's active participation in the bribery scheme and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a comprehensive investigation.

← Previous Next →