Back
2025 Supreme(GUJ) 635
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 4489 of 2025 ==========================================================
PRAGNESH MANHARBHAI KANTARIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. APURVA N MEHTA(7202) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 17/03/2025
The court granted bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023, considering the nature of allegations and the completion of the investigation.
Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023 - Section 483 - Application for regular bail - Applicant involved in transactions with fictitious firms amounting to Rs.537 crores, wrongfully availing Input Tax Credit of Rs.96.95 crores - Investigation completed, charge-sheet filed - Punishment for alleged offence is up to 5 years imprisonment - Court considers nature of allegations and discretion to grant bail. (Paras 2, 5, 7)
(B) Bail - Conditions imposed include not misusing liberty, marking presence at police station, and surrendering passport - Court emphasizes that trial Court should not be influenced by preliminary observations made during bail consideration. (Paras 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of transacting with 24 fictitious firms, leading to wrongful Input Tax Credit claims without actual goods exchanged. The investigation is complete, and the charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant seeks bail considering the nature of the offence and the duration until trial.
Findings of Court:
The Court finds it appropriate to exercise discretion in granting bail, considering the nature of allegations and the fact that trial is not likely to commence soon.
Issues: The main issues addressed include the nature of the allegations against the applicant and the appropriateness of granting bail under the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that given the nature of the allegations and the completion of the investigation, it is a fit case for bail, emphasizing the need for conditions to ensure compliance and prevent misuse of liberty.
Result: Application for regular bail allowed.
ORDER :
(M. R. MENGDEY, J.)
1. RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
2. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023, for regular bail in connection with File No. STO – EOW / DC -12 / M/s. Infinity Exim, Pragnesh Manharbhai Kantariyha / 2024 – 25 /24 dated 03.12.2024 registerd with the State Tax Officer – EOW, Enforcement, Division-12, Gandhidham.
3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that the applicant is actively involved in commission of the offence in question. The applicant had transacted with several fictitious firms and the transactions with those fictitious firms comes to the tune of Rs.537 crorres and had thus, obtained the benefit of Input Tax Credit worth Rs.96.95 crores. Actually, no transaction at all had taken place and even no goods had been exchanged between the parties and without exchange of any goods, the Input Tax Credit had been availed. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.
5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. In present case, the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. As per the case of prosecution, the applicant is alleged to have transacted with 24 fictitious firms and the amount of transactions with those firms comes to Rs.537 crores and on the basis of the said transactions, the applicant had wrongful availed the benefit of Input Tax Credit worth Rs.96.95 crores though no actual goods had been exchanged between the parties. The punishment prescribed for the offence alleged in the FIR against the present applicant is to the extent of imprisonment for the period of 5 years. Having regard to the punishment prescribed for the offence so also, the fact that the trial of the offence is not likely to commence and conclude in near future, the present application deserves consideration.
6. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012]1 SCC 40.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail, on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;
(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
(c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;
(d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned;
(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;
(f) furnish the present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of Trial Court;
9. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take a
