2023 (2) TMI 363 - HC - GST

Unauthorized and fraudulent claim of input tax credit in respect of Goods and Services Tax - setting up a number of fictitious companies, which were being used for purposes of defrauding the Government - HELD THAT - The present applicant has been in judicial custody since 17.07.2021, the chargesheet and the supplementary chargesheet have already been filed. This Court is of the view that the present applicant is similarly placed to the co-accused Pulkit who has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 12.04.2022 in BAIL APPLN. 21/2022 - As per the status report, there are no prior criminal antecedents of the present applicant and no useful purpose will be served by keeping the applicant in judicial custody any further. The applicant is admitted to bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Link Court, further subject to the terms and conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 of CrPC in a case involving multiple sections of IPC, CGST Act, and IT Act.

Analysis:
1. The application sought regular bail in a case registered under various sections of IPC, CGST Act, and IT Act related to unauthorized claim of input tax credit by a company.

2. The FIR was filed based on a complaint against the accused for setting up fictitious companies to defraud the Government by misusing bank accounts and personal information.

3. After investigation, chargesheet was filed, and the applicant was sent for trial along with a co-accused for their alleged involvement in fraudulent activities using fictitious companies.

4. The applicant had been in judicial custody since arrest, and it was argued that further custody was unnecessary as the investigation was complete, and evidence was primarily documentary in nature.

5. The applicant sought parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail by a coordinate bench of the Court in a similar case.

6. The Court referred to the previous bail order for the co-accused, emphasizing that the seriousness of the offenses alone is not conclusive for bail, and the applicant's custody had been for a considerable period without prior criminal antecedents.

7. The prosecution argued against bail by highlighting the applicant's association with the email used for fraudulent activities, seeking clarification through an additional status report.

8. After hearing both parties, the Court found the applicant similarly placed as the co-accused who had been granted bail, noting no prior criminal record and no purpose served by continued custody.

9. The Court allowed the application, admitting the applicant to bail with specific terms and conditions, including a personal bond and sureties, address disclosure, travel restrictions, evidence non-tampering, cooperation with the investigation, and bail cancellation in case of tampering.

10. The Court clarified that the bail order did not reflect any opinion on the case's merits, disposing of the application and any pending motions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings, arguments presented, and the Court's decision regarding the grant of bail in a complex case involving multiple legal provisions and criminal activities.