9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hes a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with two sureties of ₹ 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge. - S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 18825/2021 - - - Dated:- 5-2-2022 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Senior Counsel, with Mr. S. S. Hora, Adv. through VC, Mr. Arun K. Singh, Adv. through VC, Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv. through VC And Mr. Clevans Cletus, Adv. through VC For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Senior Standing Counsel for DGGI ORDER 1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of file No.DGGI/INV/MISC/433/2021-GR-H-O/O ADG-DGGI-ZU-JAIPUR Registered At ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by depositing 10 per cent of the assessed amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the persons of the complainant had mis-behavied with Rohit Kumar and he had filed a writ before the high court for ill-treatment. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in this case, no valid sanction has been given against the petitioner for filing of the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the complainant had not made accused to so called seven fake firms. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the GST Act, these firms are registered. So, it cannot be said that these firms are fake. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner had not claimed any in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. U.O.I. through Commissioner CGST, Alwar in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.8676/2020 and (17) Gaurav Kumar Aanchaliya Vs. U.O.I. in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.3624/2019. 4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had created the fake seven firms and claimed input tax credit of ₹ 16,99,89,923 (Sixteen Crores Ninety Nine lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Three). He had issued the invoices of ₹ 94,43,88,462/-(Ninety Four Crores Forty Three Lacs Eighty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Two). Learned Senior Standing Counsel further submits that the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion No.13104/2021; (8) Vinaykant Ameta Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 18243/2021; (9) Ashok Kumar Sihotiya Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9808/2021;(10) Mahendra Saini Vs. State Of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7564/2021; (11) Sumit Dutta Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.5371/2021;(12) Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466; (13) Rajesh Goyal Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.726/2011; (14) Ram Narain Popli Vs. CBI reported in 2003(1) SCR 119; (15) Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Nittin Johari and Anr. In Criminal Appeal No.1381/2019 de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
