IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Aman Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Bail Appln. 3408 of 2022 and Cr.M.A. 23659 of 2022 (interim relief)
Decided On : 06-09-2023
BAIL APPLICATION - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420/467/468/471/34 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the allegations under Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document) and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court highlighted the seriousness of economic offences, such as GST evasion, and the maximum punishment for the offences under Sections 467 and 471 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a CA, is accused of inducing the complainant to purchase goods/material through fake firms, leading to a loss of Rs.2,81,99,475. The complainant alleged that the applicant and his associates created fake firms and received payments but did not deposit GST with the department. The applicant was also accused of GST evasion and receiving Rs.3.5 crores from the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant abused the process of the court by filing multiple bail applications and attempting to secure interim protection without genuine intent to settle the matter. The court also noted the seriousness of the allegations, including economic offences and forgery, and the need for custodial interrogation.
Issues: The issues included the abuse of the court process by the applicant, the seriousness of the allegations, the need for custodial interrogation, and the grounds for grant of anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant abused the court process and that the seriousness of the allegations, including economic offences and forgery, did not warrant grant of anticipatory bail. The court also emphasized the need for custodial interrogation in such cases.
Final Decision: The bail application along with all pending applications was dismissed, and the interim protection granted to the applicant was vacated. The court clarified that its observations were purely for the purposes of deciding the present application and should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT
BAIL APPLN. 3408/2022
1. The present application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail on behalf of the applicant in FIR No.515/2022 under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at PS KN Katju Marg.
2. The present FIR was registered on the complaint of one, Umang Garg (hereinafter `complainant'), wherein the complainant alleged that he had appointed the applicant, who was a CA, to look into books of accounts of his business. The applicant was looking after day-to-day business of the complainant and accounts related transactions for the last two years in respect of M/s Ulagarasan Impex Pvt Ltd, the company of the complainant.
3. It has been alleged in the FIR that the applicant induced the complainant to purchase goods/material through different firms, which the applicant claimed to be of his known persons. The complainant started purchasing goods/materials, through Bills/E-way Bills from the said firms and the complainant was regularly making payments to the said firms. The applicant made the complainant deposit payments of the said goods in various accounts, existing in different names and was adjusting the payments against the said firms on his own. However, the complainant later got to know that the said firms are bogus and non-existent.
4. The complainant has also alleged that the applicant and his associates have duped him of Rs.2,81,99,475/- by creating fake, forged and fabricated firms and received payments including GST in different accounts against the purchased goods from the complainant, but have not deposited GST with the GST department.
5. In the Status Report filed on behalf of the State, it has been stated that the complainant was arrested by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Gurugram on 5th April, 2022 on the ground that various companies owned by him were involved in GST evasion by way of availing and passing fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. Ultimately, the complainant was granted bail on 19th April, 2022 after depositing Rs.1 crore as GST. After his release, the complainant tried to contact the applicant but the applicant started avoiding the complainant.
6. It is further stated that during the course of investigation, the complainant produced copies of invoices and e-way bills issued in the name of his company by the aforesaid firms and also produced one pen drive of telephonic conversations between the complainant and the applicant, in which the applicant accepted the fact of doing business with the complainant and also admitted that he had received Rs.3.5 crores from the complainant. During investigation, it also came to light that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was also transferred from the account of the complainant to the account of the applicant.
7. The addresses of the companies, which had raised invoices/e-way bills were also verified during investigation and were found to be locked. The statement of one Gunjan Nagpal, who was an employee of M/s Asian Enterprises, one of the firms which issued invoices to the complainant, was also recorded. In his statement, Gunjan Nagpal stated that, M/s Asian Enterprises, was run by one Deepak Agarawal and Aman Gupta.
8. Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant has throughout joined investigation as well as cooperated in the investigation. He further submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the GST evasion allegations against the complainant as the applicant never worked on accounts/returns of the complainant or complainant's companies such as M/s Ulgarasan Impex Pvt. Ltd. and the regular accounting and filing work is handled by the team of accountants of the complainant. In this regard, he has drawn attention of the Court to the bail application filed by the complainant (Annexure B) and the reply of the DGGI (Annexure C), in which no allegations have been made against the applicant. It is further stated that the present FIR has been
The seriousness of economic offences, such as GST evasion, and the need for custodial interrogation in cases involving forgery and economic crimes.
The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted if it hampers investigation, especially in cases involving economic offences.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of previous permission from the Commissioner to prosecute under the GST Act and the discretion of the court in granting anticipator....
Anticipatory bail denied due to serious allegations of fraud, necessity for custodial interrogation, and applicants' absconding status.
Anticipatory bail should be granted only in exceptional cases; the court must balance individual rights with societal interests, especially in serious economic offences.
Anticipatory bail was denied due to the serious nature of the allegations involving fraudulent GST transactions and the necessity for custodial interrogation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.