2022 (9) TMI 261 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - allegation is that the accused had lured the first informant to invest an amount of Rs. 90 lakhs in the business venture of the accused and whereas the accused have neither returned the principal nor returned the proposed profit/ interest amount to the first informant - HELD THAT - The present applicant had received some money from the first informant and whereas it also appears that the dispute between the parties, was civil in nature insofar as the said aspect is concerned - This Court has also considered the submission made by learned Advocate Mr. Popat that the present applicant would be without prejudice, willing to deposit half of the amount i.e. Rs. 45 lakhs with the learned Trial Court. This Court has also considered the submissions that allegations with regard to the possible offences under the Goods and Service Tax Act, would require to be investigated into by the officers of the Goods and Service Tax department, more particularly, as per chapter 14 of the Goods and Service Tax Act. It also requires to be mentioned that the said proposition is also not disputed by the learned APP Mr. Dabhi - It also appears that no notice has been received by the applicant from the Goods and Service Tax department with regard to the said allegations. The present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested registered with D. C. B. Police Station, Surat City, District Surat City, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions imposed. Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Allegations of offenses punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Dispute regarding investment amount and profit/interest in a business venture.
4. Alleged offenses under the Goods and Service Tax Act.
5. Request for depositing a certain amount as a show of bonafides.
6. Opposition to the application by the respondent and first informant.
7. Decision on granting anticipatory bail and conditions imposed.

Analysis:

1. The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with FIR No. 11210015220114 of 2022, involving offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The FIR alleged that the accused lured the first informant into investing Rs. 90 lakhs in a business venture but failed to return the principal or profit/interest. Additionally, there were allegations of offenses under the Goods and Service Tax Act.

3. The applicant, having been unsuccessful in obtaining relief from the Sessions Court, approached the High Court, claiming the FIR was a retaliatory measure due to a civil liability incurred by another party involved in commercial transactions.

4. The applicant offered to deposit Rs. 45 lakhs with the Trial Court as a gesture of good faith, denying liability and emphasizing the commercial nature of the disputes leading to the FIR.

5. The respondent and first informant opposed the application, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations and the need for investigation, particularly regarding the Goods and Service Tax Act offenses.

6. The Court considered the allegations, the willingness of the applicant to deposit a substantial amount, lack of criminal antecedents, and the need for separate investigation by the GST department.

7. Relying on legal precedents and considering the circumstances, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant with specific conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and depositing the agreed amount with the Trial Court.

8. The Court allowed the Investigating Agency to seek police remand if necessary, emphasizing the applicant's presence before the Magistrate and the Trial Court's independence in the final decision-making process.

9. It was clarified that observations made by the High Court during the bail order should not influence the Trial Court during the trial proceedings, ensuring a fair and impartial trial.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, and the final decision of the High Court regarding the grant of anticipatory bail and the conditions imposed on the applicant.