2022 (7) TMI 757 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - seizure of Gold Coins and Gold Bars - involved in the creation of numerous fake firms - HELD THAT - It has already been observed that no whisper was made on behalf of the complainant from 25.01.2022 till 19.03.2022 despite being represented through counsels in proceedings initiated by him, with reference to raid conducted on 25.01.2022. The signatures of Yogesh Mittal are duly appended on copy of panchnama which had been produced on 12.04.2022 during course of submissions by counsel for petitioner. In view of above, it cannot be assumed that Yogesh Mittal or Saurabh Mittal (son of Yogesh Mittal) were not aware of the contents of panchbama dated 25.01.2022. Even otherwise, during the course of proceedings, the petitioner Aishwarya Attrey as well as Ritesh only subsequently joined the proceedings as referred in panchnama. Further, no recovery of the gold has been effected despite joining of the investigation by the petitioner pursuant to the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2022. On the basis of recoveries effected from the residential/rental premises of the petitioner, no incriminating evidence pertaining to the proceedings conducted by the raiding party have been brought on record except to the extent that a cash of Rs.11 lacs was recovered from the premises. The explanation for the same is stated to have been given by the petitioner during the course of investigation and can be duly investigated in accordance with law. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of personal bond in the sum of Rs.1 lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/learned Trial Court concerned and subject to conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case under Section 7/7A/12 of PC Act read with Section 120B I.P.C. registered at Police Station: CBI, ACB, New Delhi.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Facts of the Case and Core Contentions:
The petitioner, an Inspector/Intelligence Officer with the GST Department, seeks anticipatory bail in a case involving fraudulent Input Tax Credit by fake firms. Allegations include involvement of various individuals in creating bogus firms. The petitioner joined the search proceedings under instructions and was implicated in the alleged seizure of gold coins and bars. A complaint was later filed against the petitioner, leading to a trap by CBI and ongoing investigations.

2. Interim Protection and Contentions Raised:
The petitioner was granted interim protection based on contentions that signatures were not obtained on the panchnama, and the alleged gold seizure was belatedly raised. The petitioner's defense emphasized compliance with senior officers' instructions during the raid and refuted claims of non-cooperation or individual gold removal.

3. Status Report and Opposition to Bail:
The CBI opposed the bail application citing the petitioner's fleeing from premises, seizure of incriminating items, and non-cooperation during investigations. The prosecution argued for custodial interrogation due to the need for recovery of gold and highlighted differences between the petitioner's case and the main accused.

4. Court's Decision and Analysis:
The court considered the lack of evidence for gold seizure, the inability for the petitioner to remove gold individually, and the absence of all raiding party members being implicated. No gold recovery was made during investigations under interim protection. The court granted anticipatory bail with conditions, emphasizing the petitioner's cooperation in investigations, surrender of passport, and adherence to specific directives.

This detailed analysis outlines the case's progression, key contentions, court's considerations, and the final decision granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner with specified conditions to ensure compliance and cooperation during further investigations.