2020 (9) TMI 635 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Anticipatory bail - Sections 420, 467 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Dishonor of Cheque - fake E-way bill - HELD THAT - Though the counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that on the E-way bill generated by the petitionerGST was also deposited, however, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to deny the document Annexure R-2/5 which is an electronically generated document which depicts that the E-way bill dated 04.01.2020 was rejected by the complainant on 05.01.2020. He is also not able to explain as to what was the necessity of depositing the GST on the rejected bill. The petitioner prima facie appears to have not only fabricated the E-way bill but has also, in order to create evidence, filed his GST returns on a bill which stood rejected by the complainant on the very next day. The present petition is dismissed - It is, however, made clear that nothing observed herein is to be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Summary

Issues:
1. Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a case involving Sections 420, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Allegations of generating a fake E-way bill and depositing GST.
3. Dishonoring of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
4. Investigation by the Economic Offences Wing and subsequent FIR registration.

Analysis:

1. The petition sought anticipatory bail in a case involving the registration of FIR under Sections 420, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner's counsel argued that a portion of the amount mentioned in the E-way bill was paid as GST, indicating the bill was not fake. Additionally, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, had been filed regarding the dishonoring of cheques.

2. The State filed a status report stating that the petitioner paid GST to create false evidence related to the dishonoring of cheques. It was mentioned that even though the material was not supplied, the E-way bill and GST were uploaded on the government site. The driver of the vehicle mentioned in the case denied delivering any goods to the complainant. The complainant's counsel contended that the fake E-way bill was rejected, and therefore, there was no need to deposit GST on it.

3. After hearing both parties, the court observed that while the petitioner claimed to have deposited GST on the E-way bill, evidence showed that the bill was rejected by the complainant the next day. The court found that the petitioner had likely fabricated the E-way bill and filed GST returns on a rejected bill to create false evidence. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed, with a clarification that the decision did not reflect an opinion on the case's merits.

4. The investigation by the Economic Offences Wing and subsequent FIR registration highlighted the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner. The court's decision to dismiss the anticipatory bail petition indicated a prima facie view that the petitioner had engaged in fabricating evidence, emphasizing the importance of thorough investigation and adherence to legal procedures in such cases.