2022 (8) TMI 464 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of regular bail - fraudulent and bogus transactions - floating of bogus firms - petitioner has submitted that there is no concrete evidence worth credence to establish his involvement in the alleged scam and that he has falsely been implicated in the instant case - HELD THAT - Though the police does seem to have collected some evidence, which could point towards the complicity of petitioner, but at the same time this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since the last more than 1 years. Several other co-accused including the main accused Rajesh Mittal have already been granted bail. Conclusion of trial is likely to consume time inasmuch as 22 PWs have been cited and none has been examined so far. The petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned - Application allowed.

Issues:
Grant of regular bail in a case involving Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 259 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegations of cheating, forgery, and evasion of GST leading to a loss of about Rs.80 crores to the State Exchequer. Claim of false implication and double jeopardy by the petitioner. Complicity of the petitioner in the fraudulent transactions and recovery of incriminating documents. Lengthy custody of the petitioner during the investigation.

Analysis:

The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving various sections of the Indian Penal Code related to fraudulent transactions leading to a substantial loss to the State Exchequer. The FIR alleged that the accused were involved in creating bogus firms, issuing fake bills, and facilitating the evasion of GST through fraudulent means. The police raid resulted in the apprehension of the accused and the recovery of incriminating evidence, including laptops, cheque books, and fake rubber stamps. The prosecution contended that the petitioner was the mastermind behind the racket and had orchestrated the fraudulent scheme involving multiple fake firms and industrial units.

The petitioner's counsel argued that there was insufficient concrete evidence to establish his involvement in the alleged scam and claimed that he had been falsely implicated. Additionally, the petitioner was already granted bail in a separate case under the GST Act, leading to the assertion of double jeopardy. It was further argued that the industrial units, who benefited from the fraudulent transactions, had already compensated for the alleged loss to the State Exchequer. The petitioner had been in custody for over 1.5 years, and considering the circumstances, bail was requested, especially since other co-accused, including the main accused, had already been granted bail.

The State counsel opposed the bail plea, emphasizing that the allegations of cheating and forgery in the present FIR were distinct from the GST Act complaint, thus not constituting double jeopardy. The prosecution presented evidence indicating the petitioner's involvement in creating the fake firms and orchestrating the fraudulent transactions. The recovery of fake bills, invoices, and other documents from the petitioner further strengthened the case against him. Despite the evidence pointing towards the petitioner's complicity, the extended custody duration was acknowledged, along with the fact that several co-accused had already been granted bail.

After considering the arguments and circumstances, the Court accepted the petition and granted the petitioner regular bail, highlighting the prolonged custody period, the likelihood of a lengthy trial process, and the bail granted to other co-accused as key factors in the decision. The petitioner was ordered to be released on furnishing bail or surety bonds to the satisfaction of the relevant judicial authority.

← Previous Next →