9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Not only this the prosecution has specifically quoted the incident dated 18.11.2020 stating that on that day, the statement of the applicant was recorded but the applicant without signing the statement and the permission of the Investigation Officer had left the premises. The statement has not been controverted by the applicant by filing counter affidavit. This shows the attitude of the applicant that he is not interested to extend co-operation to the Investigation Agency. Thus, if the bail as claimed by the applicant is granted in his favour in that case certainly it would adversely affect the further investigation - In view of the observations and the allegations made against the applicant, no case is made out for exercising discretio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or grant of pre-arrest bail. 4. The application has been objected by filing reply Exh.02. It is claimed that the investigation revealed that the applicant had committed the offences that are grievous in nature as the applicant has caused substantial loss to the government through his company by wrongfully availing and passing on of input tax credit (ITC) amounting to more than ₹ 16 and Crores in a fraudulent manner by issuing and receiving bogus invoices. It is claimed that during investigation it is revealed that an investigation against M/s. Kushal Ltd. was conducted wherein it was revealed that it was primarily engaged in receiving GST credit from their suppliers on the basis of invoices only without any actual receipts of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments to state that the applicant is entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail. 1. Sushil Agarwal others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 2. Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India in writ petition NO.525/2016 decided on 01.09.2016. 3. Cleartrip Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai vs. The Union of India in writ petitionNo.1088/2016 dated 26.04.2016. 4. Prasad Purushottam Mantri vs. Union of India, MANU/MH/2285/2019 and 5. Nitesh Wadhwani vs. State of MP 2020 SCC online MP 1732. 6. Per contra the Learned SPP Mr.Pathak has submitted that the allegations made against the applicant are serious in nature. He has further submitted that in view of follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during investigation it is revealed that the applicant had generated E-way bill stating movement of goods through vehicle No.MH-04-GC-2198 involving GST amount to ₹ 60.31 Crores and receiving goods through the same vehicle involving GST amounting to ₹ 57.52 Crores, but such movement of goods was not effected. According to him, despite the summons dated 18.11.2020, 19.11.2020, 23.11.2020 and 24.11.2020, the applicant had shown reluctance to appear before the Investigation Officer and did not submit the requisite documents. 10. Upon perusal of the allegations made against the applicant it is prima facie revealed that the applicant has supplied goods without invoices and that issued invoices but without supplying goods in contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nimmagadda (cited Supra) had dealt with the economic offences and concluded as under; 28. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 14. In view of the aforesaid observation and the allegations made against the applicant in my view no case is made out for exercising discretion for grant of pre-arrest bail. Resultantly, the application fails. Hence, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
