2022 (12) TMI 361 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of regular bail - availment of irregular input tax credit - fake/forged documents - HELD THAT - There is no denial to the fact that the economic offences constitute a separate class of their own, but trite it is that presumption of innocence is one of the bedrocks on which the criminal jurisprudence rests. Time and again, Apex Court has reiterated the need to integrate the right of investigating agencies to have effective interrogation of the accused with the right of liberty of the accused. Coming to the facts of the present case the investigation stands concluded and the challan stands presented. Thus, there cannot be any apprehension that the petitioner(s) shall tamper with the evidence. Considering the cumulative effect of all these circumstances the Court finds that petitioner-Arjun cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period. Petitioner-Arjun alias Muggu is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds subject to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The Court finds that no ground is made out for granting bail in his favour - Petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. Prima facie case against the petitioners.
3. Nature and gravity of the charges.
4. Severity of the punishment.
5. Risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
6. Character and past conduct of the accused.
7. Economic offences and their classification.
8. Right to a speedy trial and presumption of innocence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Regular Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:
The petitions were filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail for the petitioners in FIR No. 521 dated 8th September 2020, registered for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC, 1860.

2. Prima Facie Case Against the Petitioners:
The petitioners were not initially named in the FIR. However, during the investigation, it was found that the petitioners were involved in the registration of a fictitious entity, M/s Khushi Enterprises, using fake documents to evade taxes and commit fraud. The investigation revealed the use of specific mobile numbers, email IDs, and bank accounts linked to the petitioners.

3. Nature and Gravity of the Charges:
The charges involved serious economic offences, including forgery, cheating, and conspiracy, which resulted in significant financial loss to the state exchequer. The court emphasized the gravity of economic offences and their impact on society.

4. Severity of the Punishment:
The offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC carry severe punishments, reflecting the seriousness of the charges. The court noted that the severity of the punishment is a crucial factor in deciding bail applications.

5. Risk of Absconding or Tampering with Evidence:
The court considered whether the petitioners posed a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. For petitioner-Arjun alias Muggu, the court found no such risk as the investigation was concluded, and the challan was presented. However, for petitioner-Rakesh Puri, the court noted his involvement in multiple similar cases, indicating a higher risk of tampering with evidence and absconding.

6. Character and Past Conduct of the Accused:
The court examined the past conduct of the petitioners. Petitioner-Arjun alias Muggu had no prior cases against him, whereas petitioner-Rakesh Puri was found to be a habitual offender with four more cases pending against him for similar offences.

7. Economic Offences and Their Classification:
The court discussed the classification of economic offences and their distinct nature. It referred to precedents where the Supreme Court held that economic offences should be treated as a separate class due to their impact on society and the economy. However, the court also emphasized that bail should not be denied solely based on the classification of the offence.

8. Right to a Speedy Trial and Presumption of Innocence:
The court reiterated the importance of the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence. It cited various Supreme Court judgments that highlighted the need to balance the right to liberty with the interest of justice. The court noted that keeping the petitioners in custody for an indefinite period would violate their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Judgment:
- Petitioner-Arjun alias Muggu: The court allowed the bail application, ordering his release on bail with stringent conditions, including the surrender of his passport and an undertaking not to alter any documents or contact details related to the investigation.
- Petitioner-Rakesh Puri: The court dismissed the bail application due to his past conduct and the presence of multiple similar cases against him, indicating a higher risk of tampering with evidence and absconding.

Conclusion:
The court balanced the seriousness of the economic offences with the petitioners' right to liberty and a speedy trial. It granted bail to petitioner-Arjun alias Muggu while denying bail to petitioner-Rakesh Puri based on his habitual offending and potential risk factors.

← Previous Next →