2022 (12) TMI 84 - HC - GST

Seeking pre-arrest bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. - monetary dispute between the parties - the petitioner had committed fraud by projecting himself to be the proprietor of the firm representing reputed companies - allegation of misusing of GSTIN of another party - HELD THAT - The informant has not produced any deed of partnership between Anjuman Kumar Sharma and the petitioner in respect of M/s. NRI Group of Industries. To oppose this bail application, the informant is heavily relying on the statement made in AB 257/2022 before Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon wherein he had stated that the Anjuman Kumar Sharma and the petitioner are partners. However, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the informant, the informant has made a statement that Anjuman Kumar Sharma and his wife Pooja Sharma are partners of Zentic Pharmaceuticals. It is not known as to whether the said Anjuman Kumar Sharma has the exclusive right to use the name of M/s. NRI Group of Companies in exclusion of all others or that use of the same firm name by the petitioner would constitute a cognizable offence. Therefore, if the allegations regarding alleged evasion of GST by the petitioner is excluded for the time being from consideration, then from the contents of the FIR, it strongly appears that there is a financial dispute between the informant and the petitioner. There is no allegation that the petitioner is selling goods by ecommerce by impersonating as M/s. Zentic Pharmaceuticals, as projected in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the informant. Therefore, the said point is immaterial for consideration in this bail application. Bail application rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Pre-arrest bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. Allegations of monetary dispute and fraud in connection with GSTIN.
3. Discrepancies in statements and documents presented by the petitioner.
4. Extension of time for appearance before the Investigating Officer.
5. Breach of conditions of interim bail.
6. Rejection of pre-arrest bail application in connection with criminal case under sections 120B/420/406/386/403/506 IPC.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Boko P.S. Case No. 127/2022 involving sections 120B/420/406/386/403/506 IPC. The petitioner contended that the previous bail application was rejected based on incorrect premises related to GSTIN ownership, presenting new evidence to support his claim of innocence.

2. The petitioner argued that the allegations in the FIR pertained to a monetary dispute, which the informant tried to convert into a criminal case. The petitioner presented a Consent Letter from the Pollution Control Board and GSTIN records to establish ownership claims, refuting the fraud accusations made against him.

3. Discrepancies in the petitioner's statements and documents were highlighted, suggesting inconsistencies in ownership claims and business dealings. The informant alleged that the petitioner fraudulently obtained GSTIN and prepared fake invoices, indicating a deliberate attempt to deceive and commit fraud.

4. The petitioner requested an extension of time to appear before the Investigating Officer due to delays in receiving the court order and logistical challenges. However, the prosecution opposed the bail plea, emphasizing the seriousness of the fraud allegations against the petitioner.

5. The court noted a breach of conditions of interim bail by the petitioner, as evidenced by mobile call screenshots showing attempts to pressure the informant and compromise the matter. This breach contributed to the court's decision to reject the pre-arrest bail application.

6. Ultimately, the court rejected the petitioner's bail plea, considering the financial dispute, fraud allegations, inconsistencies in statements, and breach of bail conditions. The court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to pre-arrest bail in the criminal case under sections 120B/420/406/386/403/506 IPC, leading to the dismissal of the application.