Bail should not be cancelled without supervening circumstances that are not conducive to a fair trial, and cogent reasons are required to justify the cancellation of bail.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - By virtue of this petition, the petitioner seeks directions thereby to set aside the order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Ld. A.S.J., New Delhi, Patiala House Courts, in bail application No. 1795/2020 thereby, granting anticipatory bail to the respondents and consequentially cancel the same.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner (department) is investigating a case of fictitious firms engaged in generating and passing on fake input tax credit by issuing bogus invoices without actual supply of goods. It is alleged that M/s Milkfood Limited is at the center of this network and has availed huge ITC from firms that have been proved to be fictitious and non-existent during the investigation carried out by the petitioner. It is alleged that the preliminary investigations have revealed that M/s Milkfood Ltd. has availed fake ITC of Rs. 54.86 crores from M/s Maya Impex, M/s Aditya Sales, M/s Shiv Muskaan Traders and M/s Shri Nidhivan Foods which were being operated by one Sh. Ashish Aggarwal.

3. It is further alleged that M/s Milkfood Limited has also availed ITC of Rs. 30.54 Crores from M/s Devyaani Agro Industries. It is further alleged that M/s Milkfood Limited has availed a total amount of Rs. 85.4 crores of inadmissible fake ITC resulting into huge losses to the public exchequer. It is alleged that Ashish Aggarwal is the master mind and beneficiary of the chain of fake firms involved in GST evasion of Rs. 137.5 crores approx. He was arrested under the provisions of Sections 69(1) of the CGST Act on 29.10.2020 and Sanjay Kumar Garg, proprietor of M/s Devyaani Agro Industries involved in GST evasion of more than Rs. 30 Crores approximately was arrested on 12.11.2020. Vide order dated 14.11.2020 Ashish Aggarwal was granted bail by the Ld. CMM and the said order was challenged by the petitioner before the A.S.J. Patiala House Courts.

4. It is averred in the petition that subsequent to the bail order dated 14.11.2020 passed by the Ld. CMM the respondents filed a petition before the Ld. ASJ seeking anticipatory bail and they placed reliance upon the order dated 14.11.2020. It is further averred that respondent No. 1 is the Vice President (Accounts) in M/s Milkfood Limited, Respondent No. 2 is the CFO, Respondent No. 3 is the Whole Time Director and Respondent No. 4 is the CEO in M/s Milkfood Limited. It is further averred in the petition that despite summons dated 30.08.2020, 04.09.2020 and 07.09.2020 issued to the respondent No. 2, he failed to comply with any of the summons and it was only on 17.09.2020 that his statement could finally be recorded in response to the summons dated 14.09.2020.

5. It is further averred that on 11.11.2020 and 12.11.2020 statement of respondent No. 1 was recorded and during his statement he submitted that he is the authorized signatory of the company and reports to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 stated that he looks after the accounting audit and financial operations of the company. It is further averred that fake ITC could not have been availed by the company without the active participation of respondent No. 1. It is further averred that respondent No. 1 submitted that Sh. Harmesh Mohan Sood is the decision maker and responsible for any fake billing that may have been done by M/s Milkfood Limited and he could not confirm or deny whether the goods have actually been supplied in the transactions of M/s Milkfood Limited with M/s Maya Impex, M/s Aditya Sales, M/s Shiv Muskaan Traders, M/s Shri Nidhivan Foods, M/s Haryana Sales and M/s Shyam Sales Corporation, as he was only working in the office and has never witnessed any movements of goods. It is further averred that ignoring the statements of the respondents about the vital aspects of the matter, the impugned order dated 24.11.2020 was passed, whereby the respondents were granted benefit of anticipatory bail upon condition of deposit of 10% of the alleged duty evasion amount.

6. The respondents have contested t