2024 (3) TMI 439 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - ITC availed on forged and fictitious papers by registering bogus firms and without any business activity - GST registration of two fake firms obtained using the details of the informant - HELD THAT - The argument although of learned Additional Advocate General is of not entertaining the anticipatory bail of the applicant on the count that non-bailable warrant has been issued against him on 10.08.2023 for which paragraphs 5 6 of the counter affidavit have been placed but the facts which transpires in the present matter are that the first information report was lodged on 04.05.2023 against unknown persons, the name of the applicant surfaced in the matter on 20.07.2023 in CD No. 41, the non-bailable warrant was issued on 10.08.2023 and the anticipatory bail of the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Judge concerned on 06.10.2023 and as such the non-bailable warrant was issued just after 20 days of his name surfacing in the matter and as such ignoring the question of issuance of non-bailable warrant against the applicant during investigation, as of now, the Court has considered the matter on its own merit. In Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others 1985 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT the Apex Court had observed that relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation. It further held that courts must be cautious and circumspect in exercising powers of anticipatory bail as it intrudes the sphere of investigation. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Santosh Karnani and another 2023 (4) TMI 1302 - SUPREME COURT the law of anticipatory bail was reiterated. It was further held that corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of the benefits percolating under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. It is held that there is a need to be extra conscious. Looking to the nature of the case, the gravity of offence, the fact that the present matter relates to an economic offence, the law laid down by the Apex Court in such matters, the magnitude of offence, the modus as adopted to swindle money from the Government exchequer and the fact that custodial interrogation may be required for further investigation in the matter which is a well organised crime to go to its root and thus this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail.
2. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence.
3. The necessity of custodial interrogation.
4. The applicant's involvement and criminal history.
5. Legal precedents relevant to anticipatory bail in economic offences.

Issue 1: Entitlement to Anticipatory Bail

The applicant filed an anticipatory bail application under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B I.P.C. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR, and his implication lacks credible evidence. The applicant has no criminal history and is not a beneficiary of the alleged forged GST registrations.

Issue 2: Nature and Gravity of the Alleged Offence

The case involves the registration of two fake GST firms using the informant's details, leading to a significant financial loss to the state exchequer. The investigation revealed a PAN India scam involving bogus firms to avail Input Tax Credit fraudulently, causing a loss of Rs. 26,452,895,600/-.

Issue 3: Necessity of Custodial Interrogation

The court emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation, as it is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented. The Additional Advocate General highlighted that the applicant is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation. A Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.) has been constituted due to the nationwide scale of the offence.

Issue 4: Applicant's Involvement and Criminal History

The applicant's name surfaced during the investigation based on confessional statements of co-accused. Despite the applicant's claim of no criminal history and non-involvement, the court noted the issuance of a non-bailable warrant and the applicant's absconding status.

Issue 5: Legal Precedents Relevant to Anticipatory Bail in Economic Offences

The court cited several judgments emphasizing the cautious exercise of anticipatory bail, especially in economic offences. The court referred to cases like P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, which stressed that anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly and only in exceptional cases, particularly in economic offences involving significant financial loss to the public exchequer.

Conclusion:

Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the need for custodial interrogation, the applicant's absconding status, and the legal precedents, the court concluded that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application was thus rejected.