Anticipatory bail granted as the applicant paid the disputed amount, indicating no loss to the government, and demonstrated willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

ORDER :

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. 11208055240283 of 2024 registered with DCB Police Station, Rajkot City, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the offence. The applicant is owner of Om Construction and he has availed wrong input tax credit by taking undue advantage of forged invoices and when it came to know that, he has deposited Rs.98,51,072/- and the concerned Department has accepted the said amount along with interest and penalty and acknowledge under Rule 142(2) of the GST Rules is also issued. Now nothing is required to be recovered from the applicant. No any loss caused to the Government. The applicant is also released from other offences also. Even the applicant is ready and willing to join the investigation. 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, citing the nature and gravity of the offence. He further submitted that the applicant is involved in a serious scam, where one Krishna Enterprise forged bills, and based on these forged bills, the applicant availed an incorrect input tax credit of Rs. 98.51 lacs. Merely depositing the said amount before the authority is not a valid ground for considering bail, as it does not negate the offence. Additionally, the applicant is also involved in similar offences. A major portion of the amount directly benefits the applicant. Statements from 72 transporters have revealed that no such vehicles were used, and some of the vehicles were scrapped at the relevant time and never transported goods to the companies. This clearly indicates that forged documents were used to deceive the government. The offence is economic in nature, and there is prima facie involvement of the applicant. Hence, the application does not warrant any consideration for bail.

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 granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided. I have considered the following aspects.

(1) Case is based on documentary evidence.

(2) Co-accused having similar role are enlarged on bail by this Court.

(3) Allegation against the applicant is that, he has availed wrong ITC of Rs.98,51,072/- by forging documents. However, the said amount has already paid by the applicant before the GST Department and acknowledge receipt under Rule 142(2) of the GST Rules is issued.

(4) Now no no any amount is due and recovered from the applicant.

(5) Considering the q