Judicial discretion in bail applications must consider the seriousness of allegations, prior criminal history, and ongoing investigations.

ORDER :

1. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11208055240280 of 2024 registered with DCB Police Station, District Rajkot for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Learned advocate Mr. A.J. Yagnik appearing for the applicant has submitted that the offence alleged in the F.I.R. had taken place between 01.06.2023 to 30.09.2023 for which the F.I.R. has been lodged on 27.11.2024. The delay caused in lodging F.I.R. has not been explained satisfactorily by the prosecution. The applicant has been arrested in connection of the present offence on 20.12.2024 and since then, he is in custody.

2.1 Learned Advocate has further submitted that the applicant herein was running a firm viz. M/s. D.A.Enterprise. The applicant is ready and willing to repay the amount of Input Tax Credit, which was wrongfully availed by the present applicant, as alleged in the FIR.

2.2 Learned Advocate has further submitted the present applicant is alleged to have wrongfully availed Input Tax Credit of Rs.8,50,788/-. The maximum punishment prescribed for the offence alleged against the present applicant under the provisions of GST is imprisonment for 1 year. The applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 20.12.2024 and has also already undergone the imprisonment for almost 1.5 months.

2.3 Learned Advocate has further submitted that it is alleged against the present applicant that he had passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit, and therefore, the offence alleged against the present applicant would be punishable under Section 122 of the GST Act. The applicant has never been asked to pay the dues, and therefore, the applicant has not paid though he had shown willingness to deposit the amount before the concerned Trial Court as well as before the concerned Sessions Court. However, the same has not been considered by the Courts below. The applicant is still ready and willing to deposit the said amount.

2.4 Learned Advocate has further submitted that as per the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court creating false bills would not amount to forgery, and therefore, none of the offences punishable under the provisions of IPC are made out against the present applicant. The applicant has been sought to be arraigned in the present offence only on the basis of the statements of the co-accused.

2.5 Learned Advocate has further submitted that the arrest of the present applicant has been politically motivated, as the present applicant is a Journalist. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the present applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.

3. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments:-

1. Varun Rakesh Bansal Vs. State of Gujarat, (2022) SCC Online Guj 2587

2. Harsh Vinodbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 20751 of 2023

3. Director of General Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Ahmedabad Vs. Harsh Vinodbhai Patel passed by Apex Court in SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 21287 of 2024

4. KGN Enterprise Ltd. Through Babulal Jethalal Hirani & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, 2017 (0) AIJEL-HC 247325

5. Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.,(2009) 8 SCC 751

6. Prakash Ramchandra Barot & Ors. Vs.State of Gujarat passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2780 of 2011

7. Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Buruau of Investigation,(2012) 1 SCC 40

8. Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.,(2022) 10 SCC 51

9. P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement,(2020) 13 SCC 791

10. Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.,(2014) 8 SCC 273

11. Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Centr