2023 (8) TMI 1219 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Regular bail - availment of fraudulent input tax credit - issuance of tax invoices and Excise bills without supply of goods - HELD THAT - This Court in the case titled as MANINDER SHARMA, VINOD KUMAR SUNNY MEHTA, AND SANDEEP SINGH VERSUS STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE TAX, MOBILE WING, JALANDHAR, PUNJAB. STATE OF PUNJAB ANR., STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH STATE TAX OFFICER, DEPTT OF EXCISE TAXATION 2022 (9) TMI 119 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT has held in economic offences involving the IPC or Special Acts or cases triable by Magistrates once the investigation is complete, final report/complaint filed and the triple test is satisfied then denial of bail must be the exception rather than the rule. However, this would not prevent the Court from granting bail even prior to the completion of investigation if the facts so warrant. The veracity of the prosecution case shall be adjudicated upon during the course of trial. Admittedly, the case is triable by the Court of a Magistrate. The petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2022 and 22 out of the 33 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Therefore, the trial in the present case is not likely to be concluded any time soon. No serious apprehension has been expressed by the State that the petitioner would abscond from justice, tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses if granted the concession of bail. Therefore, in this situation, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required. The present petition is allowed and the petitioner, namely, Puneet Sonkar, is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case involving FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

Details of the Judgment:
The case revolved around the petitioner being accused of forming bogus firms and causing a loss of revenue to the state exchequer. The investigation revealed that the petitioner misused documents to register firms in the name of others, leading to financial discrepancies worth Rs. 3,05,10,099. The petitioner, a tax consultant without formal qualifications, disclosed his involvement in creating fictitious companies, indicating his role as the main accused in the fraudulent activities.

The petitioner sought bail, claiming false implication and being a first-time offender, with a significant portion of prosecution witnesses already examined. The State, while acknowledging the petitioner's first-time offender status and time in custody, opposed bail due to the substantial financial loss caused by the petitioner's actions.

In the judgment, the court referenced a previous case emphasizing that bail denial should be an exception in economic offenses, especially when the investigation is complete and the trial is likely to be prolonged. Considering the trial's nature, the petitioner's custody duration, and the lack of serious concerns regarding absconding or tampering with evidence, the court granted bail to the petitioner.

The court ordered the release of the petitioner on bail, subject to conditions including regular appearance before the police station, submission of a financial deposit, and restrictions on involvement in any other criminal activities during the trial period.