The court emphasized the need for careful consideration of bail applications, balancing the gravity of accusations against the applicant's willingness to cooperate and lack of prior offenses.

ORDER :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.

1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11208055240280 of 2024 registered with DCB Police Station, Rajkot City, for the o punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is lady and has nothing to do with the offence. The applicant has no past antecedent. The applicant has been arraigned as an accused No.9 being proprietor of Arham Steel. It is alleged against the applicant is that, during period 01.06..2023 to 30.09..2023, one M/s. Parmar Enterprise has passed on fake input tax credit to 14 taxpayers including the present applicant’s firm i.e. Arham Steel to the tune of Rs.7,64,332/-. In this regard, FIR came to be filed against the applicant including other 13 other companies. The applicant has nothing to do with the offence. Her husband is looking after the day to day affairs of the company, but when the applicant came to know the wrongly availed input tac credit, she has transferred and not availed the benefit. Nothing is required to be recovered from the applicant. She is ready and willing to join investigation. On similar set of facts, one another complaint was registered, wherein, the applicant is protected by coordinate Bench of this Court and pursuant to that offence, if the applicant appears before police, she apprehends her arrest in the impugned offence and therefore, she may be granted bail. Therefore, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. Besides, the applicant is available during the course of investigation and will not flee from justice. In view of the above, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.

3. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondent – State, has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail due to the nature and gravity of the offence. He has submitted that the applicant is involved in a systematic fraud, defrauding the government. Total 55 firms have been found to be involved, with one firm, Parmar Enterprise, generating 50 fake e-way bills between June and September 2023, without actual supply or corresponding goods. These fraudulent e- way bills were used to avail input tax credit by different companies. It is further submitted that, during the investigation, the statements of drivers and transporters were recorded, which revealed that they did not actually deliver the said goods. Therefore, to unearth the truth, the interrogation of the applicant is necessary. The applicant is also involved in a similar nature of offence. As a result, the applicant has wrongfully availed a benefit of Rs. 7,64,332/- by claiming input tax credit, thereby causing a loss to the public exchequer. Hence, the application for anticipatory bail does not deserve any consideration.

4. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and

(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of g