2024 (1) TMI 1109 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - compounding of offences - criminal conspiracy of evasion of tax - false and fabricated documents - HELD THAT - A strong apprehension has been shown by prosecution that if the applicant is released on bail then, there is possibility of tampering with the evidence and fleeing away from the trial. The present application is filed before submission of the chargesheet and the investigation is not yet completed and the apprehension has been shown by prosecution that if the applicant is released on bail then, there is possibility of tampering with the evidence and hampering with the witnesses, which would affect the trial. Therefore considering the nature of offence, role attributed to the applicant, played by him and past antecedents of the applicant similar in nature, the present application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the present application is rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for regular bail u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Allegations of tax evasion and forgery of documents.
3. Jurisdiction and procedural compliance under the GST Act.
4. Consideration of past antecedents and risk of tampering with evidence.

Issue-wise Comprehensive Summary:

1. Application for Regular Bail u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The applicant sought regular bail in connection with an FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 120(B), 201, 472, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant has been in judicial custody since his arrest on 01.12.2023.

2. Allegations of Tax Evasion and Forgery of Documents:
The prosecution alleged that the applicant provided false seals to co-accused for applying in containers, facilitating the evasion of tax. The applicant was in contact with the main accused stationed in Dubai. The investigation revealed that the accused prepared false and fabricated documents to defraud the government, resulting in a loss of over Rs.100 crores to the exchequer.

3. Jurisdiction and Procedural Compliance under the GST Act:
The applicant's counsel argued that the investigation should be conducted by officers under the GST Act, not by the state police. The court noted that the FIR was registered for offences under the Indian Penal Code, not the GST Act, and thus the submission regarding procedural compliance under the GST Act was deemed misconceived.

4. Consideration of Past Antecedents and Risk of Tampering with Evidence:
The court considered the applicant's past involvement in similar offences and the risk of tampering with evidence if released on bail. The prosecution highlighted the applicant's habitual nature in committing such offences and the ongoing investigation, which was yet to be completed. The court emphasized the need to balance individual liberty with societal interest and noted the reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence and fleeing from the trial.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the bail application, citing the nature of the offence, the applicant's role, past antecedents, and the potential risk to the investigation and trial. The observations made were confined to the decision of the present bail application.