The court considered the evidence, duration of custody, and bail granted to co-accused in deciding to grant bail to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. (Oral). - The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.571 dated 4.6.2019, Police Station Chandani Bagh, Panipat, District Panipat, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 259 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The instant FIR was lodged at the instance of ASI Vinod Kumar wherein it has been alleged that on 4.6.2019 when he along with other police officials was present near grain market bridge in connection with patrolling, then he received a secret information to the effect that one Rajesh Mittal, Inder Partap Singh and Manish are committing huge loss to the exchequer on account of fraudulent and bogus transactions. The information was further to the effect that the said accused float bogus firms and by entering into bogus transactions with bigger firms, they were getting huge amounts deposited in the bank accounts of the bogus firms so floated and were eventually facilitating the big firms to save on GST in fraudulent manner and thus, deprived the State Exchequer of the GST which was legitimately due. It was informed that the said accused were moving about in Hyundai 'i20' car bearing registration No. HR-06AJ-2474 while carrying laptops and were waiting for someone near T-point railway line, Grain Market.

3. It is the case of prosecution that pursuant to receipt of said information, the police conducted raid at the nominated place and was able to apprehend the accused Rajesh Mittal, Inder Partap Singh and Manish and from whose possession, laptops, cheque books, fake rubber stamps of ETO and of DTC and various files of bogus firms were recovered. The car in which the accused were travelling was found to be registered in the name of Vipul Jindal, brother-in-law of Rajesh Mittal. During investigation, it was revealed that it is Rajesh Mittal, who is the kingpin of the racket of evasion of GST and who had prepared forged bills purported to have been issued by M/s Lalit Trading Company which was infact previously a defunct company. As per the said bogus bills issued in favour of 18 firms which had been constituted and registered by the accused themselves for the purpose of commission of offences, sale of yarn by M/s Lalit Trading Company was shown to have been made to the said 18 firms. Upon investigation, it was found that the said 18 firms had been incorporated/registered by associating persons of limited means like rickshaw pullers etc. and were actually not businessmen. Upon investigation, it further transpired that the 18 firms so constituted by the accused had further issued bills in favour of 421 different industrial units based in Panipat and the said industrial units of Panipat, on the basis of such bills which also reflected payment of GST had inflated their expenditure and payment of GST though infact such expenditure had never been actually incurred. In other words, such industrial units of Panipat were evading payment of a substantial amount of GST on the ground that the initial supplier i.e. M/s Lalit Trading Company had already charged GST. Although, the payments by the said industrial units used to be made by the aforesaid bogus 18 firms by way of banking transactions but the said amount used to be withdrawn from the accounts of the said firms by the accused and used to be given back to the industrial units of Panipat after retaining a certain percentage. It is the case of prosecution that fraudulent transactions of colossal amount of more than Rs.1325 crores had been effected ultimately leading to a loss of about Rs.80 crores to the State Exchequer in the shape of evasion of payment of GST.

4. The learned counsel representing the petitioner has submitted that there is no concrete evidence worth credence to establish his involvement in the alleged scam and that he has falsely been implicated in the instant case. The learned counsel has further submitted that it is infact a case of double jeopardy wherein the petitio