9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 1074 - HC - GSTLegitimacy of the applicant's involvement in the alleged crime - Applicability of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC - fictitious firms - nucleus of the entire issue is that there is a Press Reporter, who says that his PAN Card was misused and on the basis of his PAN Card two Firms were registered - offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC - HELD THAT - Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the relevancy of information received from a person accused of any offence while in the custody of the police officer. The Section provides an exception to the general rule that confessions made to the police officers are inadmissible in evidence. From the aforesaid, the scope of Section 27 of the Act, 1872 is that it applies to any information given by the person accused of an offence, which leads to the discovery of a fact - The exception to rule of admissibility is that normally confessions made to a police officer or while in police custody are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, however, Section 27 allows for an exception where information received from the accused leads to discovery of a fact. The Section makes only that part of the statement relevant, which directly leads to the discovery of facts. It does not make the entire statement of the accused inadmissible. The condition for applicability of the aforesaid Section is that the person giving the information must be an accused in police custody. The information provided must lead directly to the discovery of the material fact and only that portion of information which directly leads to the discovery is admissible. For example, if an accused, while in custody, reveals the location of a weapon used in the crime and upon searching that location, the weapon is indeed found, the part of statement where accused described the location of weapon is admissible in courts as evidence. In the present case, after registration of the FIR when forgery had been done by using the Aadhaar Card and PAN Card of the informant, fake GST firms were registered, Investigating Officer proceeded on the information as provided by a secret informer and arrested two accused who disclosed about the office where work of the firm was being done. On the aforesaid information of the arrested accused persons, the Investigating Officer reached the office premises, wherein he found other persons working for the firm of the arrested accused persons. Laptops, mobiles, SIM Cards, fake invoices were recovered, thus, discovering such fact which connected them with the main accused who had got registered the fake firms and the consequential forgery or theft of GST was found. Thus, that part of the discovery of fact is admissible as per Section 27 of the Act. The principal of bail is the rule, jail is the exception is a fundamental concept in criminal law, where the criminal justice system recognizes the importance of personal liberty and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This principal emphasizes that an accused should ordinarily be granted bail unless there are compelling reasons to detain him in custody - The present case relates to economic offences, such as large scale fraud, money laundering and corruption, are often viewed seriously because they affect the economic fabric of the society. The Courts may deny bail in such cases especially if the accused holds a position of influence or power. In the present case, money trail of crores, which affects the society at large scale, is involved which started from registration of fake firms by using Aadhaar and PAN Cards of the informant who had not applied for such registration. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy 2023 (2) TMI 1045 - SUPREME COURT has held that in the economic offences which are having great impact on the society, the court must be slow in exercising discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. In the case of Tahir Hussain v. The Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate 2022 (11) TMI 1231 - DELHI HIGH COURT , the Court has observed that the accused Tahir Hussain was involved in the acts of cheating/ falsification/ forgery of documents which resulted in fraudulent removal of money from the accounts of the three companies (M/s SEAPL, ECPL and EGSPL) - Tahir Hussain was ultimate beneficiary of the laundered money which he used for fulfilment of ulterior motives. Fake and bogus invoices were created to cover the money trail. The Apex Court in the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and another 2001 (3) TMI 1053 - SUPREME COURT , has held that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, larger interest of the public or State and similar other considerations. Law on consideration of the Court to grant or refusal of bail has been settled by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan 2004 (3) TMI 763 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court has held that the court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The Apex Court has, in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT , held that precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have bearing on principle and the consideration will have to be on caseto- case basis on facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial. Having gone through the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation of offence, role of the applicants, it is opined that this is not a fit case for granting bail - The bail applications preferred by the applicant, is rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the arrest and implication of the accused. 2. Involvement of the accused in the alleged GST fraud. 3. Applicability of bail principles in economic offences. 4. Role of evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 5. Consideration of parity in bail applications. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Arrest and Implication of the Accused: The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and had no connection with the alleged crime. He claimed no incriminating material existed against him, and his arrest was based on a recovered mobile phone, which he denied owning. The prosecution, however, presented a detailed investigation showing the applicant's alleged involvement in a syndicate creating fake GST firms using stolen identities, leading to significant financial fraud. 2. Involvement of the Accused in the Alleged GST Fraud: The prosecution detailed a complex operation involving the creation of fake GST firms using stolen PAN and Aadhaar details, with the applicant allegedly part of a larger syndicate. Evidence included recovered SIM cards, laptops, and fake invoices. The investigation revealed the registration of 2600 fake firms, with input tax credit fraud exceeding Rs. 4000 crores. The applicant's alleged role was linked through a chain of evidence, including confessions and recovered materials. 3. Applicability of Bail Principles in Economic Offences: The court emphasized that economic offences require a different approach due to their impact on society. The principle that "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" was considered, but exceptions exist for serious economic crimes. The court highlighted the gravity of the offence, the potential flight risk, and the need to prevent tampering with evidence. The applicant's involvement in a large-scale fraud justified the denial of bail. 4. Role of Evidence Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act: Section 27 allows admissibility of information leading to the discovery of facts. The court noted that the investigation revealed crucial evidence through confessions and discoveries made during custody, which connected the applicant to the crime. The court referenced landmark judgments to explain the admissibility of such evidence, emphasizing the balance between protecting the accused's rights and enabling effective law enforcement. 5. Consideration of Parity in Bail Applications: The applicant sought bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail. The court clarified that parity is not an absolute right and must be assessed based on each individual's role and circumstances. The court reiterated that while parity can be considered, it does not guarantee bail, especially in cases involving serious economic offences. Conclusion: The court, after considering the nature of the accusations, the role of the applicant, and the evidence presented, found no grounds to grant bail. The detailed investigation and the gravity of the alleged offences, involving significant financial fraud, led to the rejection of the bail applications for the applicant.
|
