9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchase properties in the names of their family members and relatives - It is true that accused Nos. 1 and 2 are alleged to have misused the credentials of complainant and others and withdrawn various sums from their accounts and instead of paying the same towards the dues of Income Tax, GST and other statutory authorities, have misappropriated the same. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC. In the present case, the charges levelled against the accused cannot be categorized as heinous offences, even through the stakes involved are very heavy. Already with the arrest of accused No. 1 in O.R. No. 17/2024-25, the concerned authorities have investigated the matter. Even where the accused indulg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 1 and 2. 3. Crl.P. No. 103172/2024 is filed by the complainant under Section 439 (2) r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 05.08.2024 in Crl. Misc. 913/2024 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi granting anticipatory bail to accused No. 1 (in crime No. 65/2024 of CEN Police, Belagavi) for offences punishable under Sections 201, 406, 420 of IPC r/w Sections 66 and 66D of Information Technology, Act, 2008 ( I.T. Act for short) and order dated 29.08.2024 in Crl. Misc. 981/2024 relaxing condition No. 1 regarding deposit of cash security of Rs.1 crore and in its place imposing a condition that he shall not go abroad or leave the jurisdiction of India without the permission of the trial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omplainant had entrusted credentials of himself, his family and firm for the purpose of filing tax returns and other statutory filings. Accused No. 1 introduced his son i.e., accused No. 2 as an expert in filing GST returns, accounts and handling all the matters relating to GST. Thus, both accused Nos. 1 and 2 have taken complete responsibility of filing periodical returns with GST, Income Tax and other departments. They have collected necessary professional charges from complainant. 8. Since July, 2017 accused No. 1 has collected payment from complainant firm to his account towards GST within stipulated time. Thereafter, he directed complainant to remit the amount payable towards GST in the account of accused No. 2 from 23.07.2022 assuring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tely filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B for the month of May, 2024 on 06.07.2024 and made false statement in the declaration which by law receivable as evidence, caused disappearance of evidence and tampered evidences which are pending before the GST authorities. 12. Even after receipt of legal notice, accused Nos. 1 and 2 have dishonestly made use of unique identification login of complainant firm and deleted the data of the said firm and cheated by impersonating and misrepresented the GST authorities by filing false statement of accounts and destroyed evidence pending GST proceedings against the complainant s firm. Out of Rs. 9,72,35,137/- received by accused Nos. 1 and 2 from 01.04.2021 to 26.06.2024, accused Nos. 1 and 2 have paid approximately R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter initiation of proceedings by GST authorities, accused No. 2 has changed the credentials of GST portal of the petitioner without any authority and deliberately filed GST returns for the month of May, 2024 with the sole intention of manipulating GST data and erase/delete evidence. 16.2 Having regard to the gravity of economic offences committed by accused Nos. 1 and 2, the sessions court is not justified in granting anticipatory bail to accused Nos. 1 and 2, solely on the ground that the offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 16.3 The Sessions Court is also not justified in taking into consideration the bail granted to accused No. 2 by the Magistrate in O.R. No. 17/2024-25 and for all these reasons, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the same. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC. 21. The maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 406 of IPC is imprisonment, which may extend to 3 years and also liable to fine. Similarly, the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 420 of IPC is imprisonment upto 7 years. Normally, the courts refused to grant bail when there is possibility of accused persons threatening or tampering with the witnesses, committing similar offences and absconding and thereby preventing courts from proceedings against and punishing them. The anticipatory bail could also be refused when the presence of the accused is required for the purpose of recovery. 22. In the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
