9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... davit-in-opposition filed by the informant, the informant has made a statement that Anjuman Kumar Sharma and his wife Pooja Sharma are partners of Zentic Pharmaceuticals. It is not known as to whether the said Anjuman Kumar Sharma has the exclusive right to use the name of M/s. NRI Group of Companies in exclusion of all others or that use of the same firm name by the petitioner would constitute a cognizable offence. Therefore, if the allegations regarding alleged evasion of GST by the petitioner is excluded for the time being from consideration, then from the contents of the FIR, it strongly appears that there is a financial dispute between the informant and the petitioner. There is no allegation that the petitioner is selling goods by e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that in this present pre-arrest bail petition, the petitioner has produced a copy of Consent Letter dated 28.04.2022 by the Pollution Control Board in favour of M/s. NRI Group of Companies, where the name of the petitioner is reflected as proprietor. Moreover, the print-out of GSTIN search made in the web portal of the Goods and Service Tax discloses that the said GSTIN was issued to the petitioner, with effective date of registration being 24.12.2021, which was however suspended w.e.f. 19.05.2022. Thus, it was submitted that on incorrect premise, the previous pre-arrest bail application was rejected. 4. Moreover, it was submitted that in connection with this application, the informant has now projecting some other business dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the land of the petitioner. However, the petitioner had committed fraud by projecting himself to be the proprietor of the firm under the name and style of M/s. NRI Group of Companies and M/s. Zentic Pharmaceuticals and obtained GSTIN in his name and had prepared fake invoices to show as if he had sold bricks to the petitioner at Delhi and a sum of Rs.1,07,17,000/- was due from Anjuman Kumar Sharma. However, it was inadvertently mentioned in the order dated 03.08.2022 in AB 920/2022 that the GSTIN 18BGFPA0282E1ZW, which was not the case of the informant. Hence, it is submitted that this is not a case of business or commercial dispute between the parties, but the petitioner had committed fraud. 7. It was submitted that the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st bail application he has projected himself to be the owner of a brick kiln in the name and style of NRI Group of Companies. It is seen that there is a mismatch in the statement made in paragraph 7 of the bail application and bill for supply at page 50 to 275 of this application. In paragraph 7 a statement has been made to the effect that the petitioner no.1 and the NRI Group of Companies had invested equal shares to carry out business of bricks, whereas the documents at page 50 to 275 indicates that bills were raised by NRI Groups of Companies to Anjuman Kumar Sharma. Therefore, it appears from the documents appended to the pre-arrest bail application, specifically the bills for supply referred to above that the petitioner is using GSTIN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner is more elaborately referred in para 7 above. While considering pre-arrest bail application, we would not comment whether or not the Anjuman Kumar Sharma could have purchased bricks from his own partnership firm because this is not the forum to decide such issues. But it cannot be ruled out that a proprietor of a firm cannot purchase goods from his own establishment. But if the bills are fraudulent, it can surely be investigated by the police, but it would be a matter of debate whether the police would be empowered to investigate regarding non-payment of GST for the invoices raised by the petitioner on the informant and in this regard, it could not be shown from the GST enactments that police can investigate such matters. 14. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to mobile call screenshots to project that on 03.11.2022, the informant had been repeatedly calling the informant and Anjuman Kumar Sharma to mount pressure to them to compromise the matter. This does amount to breach of the conditions on which interim pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner by interim order dated 26.10.2022. Under such circumstances, the Court does not find this to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Hence, the Court is of the considered opinion that under the circumstances, the petitioner, namely, Rohul Amin is not entitled to pre-arrest bail in connection with Boko P.S. Case No. 127/2022 under sections 120B/420/406/386/403/506 IPC. Accordingly, the prayer for his bail is rejected at this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
