2024 (6) TMI 955 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - use of false forged or fake documents and the offence of abetment - in its operations has the Petitioner been associated with irregularities or offences - HELD THAT - In BHADRESH BIPINBHAI SHETH VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT ANOTHER 2016 (2) TMI 416 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Supreme Court has laid down specific guidelines for applications for anticipatory bail. The Hon ble Supreme Court held The prosecutrix has moved an application in these proceedings for perusing new evidence on the basis of which she claims that the appellant has committed breach of conditions of anticipatory bail and regular bail. It is not necessary for us to go into the allegations made in this application. In GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB 1980 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Apex Court held that The question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answers upon a variety of circumstances the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict . It is settled law that while considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail the accusation s nature and gravity and the accused s exact role must be properly comprehended before arrest is made. In the event of some doubt as to the genuineness of the Prosecution the normal course of events is that the accused is entitled to an order of anticipatory bail. The Court must adequately exercise its jurisdiction to protect the personal liberty of a citizen. It is also a well-accepted principle that bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. This Court views that even if the Petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail there cannot be any apprehension for the Prosecution that they will tamper with the evidence. The material placed on record discloses that the Petitioners have a permanent abode. It is not the Prosecution s case that the Petitioners would flee away from the jurisdiction of the Court. The facts do not warrant custodial interrogation of the Petitioners - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Anticipatory Bail u/s 438 of Cr. P.C.
2. Allegations and Prosecution's Case
3. Petitioners' Defense
4. Jurisdiction and Applicability of IPC vs. GST Act
5. Considerations for Granting Anticipatory Bail

Summary:

1. Anticipatory Bail u/s 438 of Cr. P.C.:
The petitions were filed u/s 438 of Cr. P.C. by various accused seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 63 of 2024 of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada, involving charges under Sections 420, 409, 467, 471 of IPC.

2. Allegations and Prosecution's Case:
The prosecution alleged that Avexa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (A.C.P.L.) engaged in fraudulent activities, including the improper availing of Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.) under the GST regime, resulting in a financial loss of Rs. 26,25,19,393/- to the Government. The investigation by D.G.G.I., Hyderabad, revealed that A.C.P.L. issued fake invoices and bills, did not receive services, and transferred funds to shell companies. The fraudulent activities were said to have occurred between 2017 and 2022.

3. Petitioners' Defense:
The petitioners contended that the allegations were politically motivated and based on fabricated facts. They argued that the essential elements required under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC were not present and that there was no deceitful inducement or breach of trust. The petitioners also highlighted their non-involvement in the company's operations during the alleged period and expressed concerns about their potential arrest affecting their political activities.

4. Jurisdiction and Applicability of IPC vs. GST Act:
The petitioners argued that the GST Act specifically addresses the offences related to false documents and abetment, and thus, the police lacked jurisdiction to register an FIR under IPC provisions. They cited Sections 132, 134, and 137 of the GST Act, emphasizing that the matter should be handled by the GST authorities.

5. Considerations for Granting Anticipatory Bail:
The court, referring to precedents, emphasized the need to balance the investigation's integrity with the protection of personal liberty. It noted that the investigation by D.G.G.I. was largely complete and that the petitioners were willing to cooperate. The court found no risk of the petitioners absconding or tampering with evidence and thus granted anticipatory bail under specific conditions, including surrendering before the Station House Officer and cooperating with the investigation.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the criminal petitions, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners with conditions to ensure their cooperation with the investigation, while noting that the observations made were preliminary and specific to the anticipatory bail applications.