2022 (12) TMI 889 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - conspiracy - huge loss to Revenue - during the pendency of the CIT appeals at Kolkata, the revision petitions have been filed to obtain favourable orders - offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - HELD THAT - The court has gone through the materials available on record as well as rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and finds that it has been alleged that the petitioner Bishal Agarwal has prepared Section 264 petitions and represented the companies before the PCIT. The petitioners Satyanarayan Sarawagi and Uday Shankar Mahawar are concerned, they are the directors / controllers of the respective companies, as disclosed in the submission of learned D.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI and the huge loss has occurred to the Government. The petitioner Binod Kumar Agarwal is concerned, he has made his son Bishal Agarwal as authorized representative for most of the above mentioned Assessee companies with the active involvement, he himself along with the controller of the Assessee companies were able to evade taxes and had obtained wrongful gain and so far as petitioner Deepak Kumar is concerned, he was also the director / controller of the company mentioned in the submission of learned A.S.G.I. and huge loss has occurred to the Government due to his active conspiracy with the then PCIT. All the petitioners are in conspiracy of transferring the PAN to the PCIT, Ranchi, Hazaribag and Koderma. It has also come that during the pendency of the CIT appeals at Kolkata, such revision petitions have been filed to obtain favourable orders in connivance with Sri Tapas Kumar Dutta, the then PCIT. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the cases and considering that the economic offence is a serious offence against the society, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Anticipatory bail applications arising out of RC AC1 2018 A 0007
- Allegations of conspiracy leading to huge loss to the Government
- Involvement of petitioners in transferring cases and evading taxes
- Role of petitioners as controllers or directors of companies
- Conspiracy to transfer PAN from Kolkata to Ranchi, Hazaribag, and Koderma
- Rejection of anticipatory bail based on serious economic offences

Detailed Analysis:
1. The anticipatory bail applications in this case stem from RC AC1 2018 A 0007, involving offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioners are seeking relief as they fear arrest in connection with the alleged conspiracy leading to significant financial losses for the Government.

2. The petitioners are accused of being part of a conspiracy related to the transfer of cases from CIT appeal to revisional authority in different locations. The allegations suggest that through this conspiracy, the Government incurred substantial losses, with the modus operandi involving obtaining favorable orders by transferring PAN from Kolkata to Ranchi, Hazaribag, and Koderma.

3. The petitioners, including individuals identified as controllers or directors of certain companies, are facing accusations of orchestrating schemes to evade taxes and secure wrongful gains. The involvement of dummy directors and fake addresses to facilitate the migration of companies from one location to another forms a crucial part of the allegations.

4. The CBI, represented by various counsels, argues that intercepted calls and other evidence point to the active involvement of the petitioners in the alleged conspiracy. The petitioners are accused of playing pivotal roles in arranging illegal gratifications, influencing public servants, and orchestrating the migration of companies for unlawful purposes.

5. The court, after considering the submissions from both sides, emphasizes the seriousness of economic offenses and the societal impact of such crimes. Given the gravity of the allegations, including the substantial financial losses incurred by the Government, the court decides not to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, ultimately dismissing their applications.

6. The rejection of anticipatory bail is based on the court's assessment of the evidence presented, highlighting the petitioners' alleged roles in the conspiracy, their connections to the financial losses suffered by the Government, and the broader implications of economic offenses on society. The decision underscores the court's stance on the severity of the accusations and the need to address such offenses with the appropriate legal measures.