2025 (2) TMI 668 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of regular bail - applicant is ready and willing to repay the amount of Input Tax Credit which was wrongfully availed by the present applicant as alleged in the FIR - HELD THAT - From the record it appears that apart from the present F.I.R. several other F.I.R. appears to have been lodged against the present applicant. The applicant has sought to rely upon the order passed by this Court dated 09.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.22792 of 2024 wherein this Court had exercised discretion in favour of the present applicant in the F.I.R. which was pertaining to similar offence registered against the applicant. However in the said case the applicant was arrested on 08.10.2024 and had undergone imprisonment for a period of three months. The said F.I.R. was registered on 07.10.2024 and investigation in the said case was virtually over. In the present case the F.I.R. has been lodged on 27.11.2024. The investigation of the present offence is still in progress. Moreover after registration of the F.I.R. wherein the applicant has been considered for grant of bail by this Court several other offence of similar nature have been registered against him. This Court is not inclined to exercise its judicial discretion in favour of the applicant at this stage. The application is dismissed.

Summary

The case before the Gujarat High Court involved an application for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11208055240280 of 2024 registered with DCB Police Station, District Rajkot for offenses under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The main issues considered by the Court included the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the alleged wrongful availing of Input Tax Credit, the political motivation behind the arrest, and the involvement of money laundering in the offense.The applicant's counsel argued that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. was not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution, and the applicant was willing to repay the wrongfully availed Input Tax Credit. It was also contended that the applicant had not been asked to pay the dues and was ready to deposit the amount. The counsel further argued that creating false bills would not amount to forgery and that the arrest was politically motivated due to the applicant being a journalist.In support of these arguments, the applicant relied on various judgments to establish legal precedents. However, the respondent, represented by the Additional Advocate General, opposed the bail application, asserting that apart from fraud in wrongfully availing Input Tax Credit, money laundering was also involved. The respondent highlighted the seriousness of the allegations, the applicant's previous similar offenses, and the use of fake invoices in the offense.The Court considered the arguments presented by both sides and noted that multiple F.I.R.s had been lodged against the applicant, indicating a pattern of similar offenses. While the Court had previously granted bail in a similar case, it declined to do so in the present case due to the ongoing investigation, the seriousness of the allegations, and the applicant's involvement in multiple offenses of a similar nature.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the bail application, citing the ongoing investigation, the applicant's history of similar offenses, and the seriousness of the allegations as reasons for not exercising judicial discretion in favor of the applicant at that stage.