PIYUSH AGRAWAL
Qamar Ahmed Kazmi – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Piyush Agrawal, J.
Heard Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Ankit Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, for the State - opposite party.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 394/2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 471 & 120B IPC, Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Meerut with the prayer to release him on bail during pendency of trial.
3. The prosecution story as set up in the FIR filed by the Incharge Inspector, Special Task Force (S.T.F.) is that the applicant has availed the input tax credit of more than Rs. 4,28,37,362/- for the period of 2017-18 to 2022-23 without actual movement of goods on the basis of forged and fictitious documents of supplies were procured from various non-existing firms i.e. Santosh Enterprises, Sandip Metal, Honey Metal and Rajpal & sons. Further after implementation of e-way bill system on the portal from the year 2018-19 till the month of May, 2023, e-way bills worth Rs. 17,33,83,966 have been cancelled by the applicant's firm without any valid reasons
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ramendu Chattopadhyay 2020 (14) SCC 396
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. (2018) 3 SCC 22
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528
Nimmgadda v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2013 (7) SCC 466
P. Chidambaram v. C.B.I. (2020) 13 SCC 337
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) SCC 24
Pawan Alias Tamatar v. Ram Prakash Pandey 2002 (9) SCC 166
Ram Pratap Yadav v. Mitra Sen Yadav 2003 (1) SCC 15
Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. (2012) 1 SCC 40
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nitin Johari 2019 (9) SCC 165
State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar Alias Bachcha Rai 2017 (13) SCC 751
State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamali Porwal 1987 (2) SCC 364
The seriousness of economic offences does not alone justify bail denial; factors like trial delay and personal circumstances must also be considered.
Any offence under this Act may, either before or after institution of prosecution, be compounded by Commissioner on payment, by person accused of the offence, to Central Government or State Governmen....
Bail is the rule and denial is the exception; economic offences require careful consideration of evidence and the nature of accusations.
The court emphasized that economic offences require a stringent approach in bail considerations, especially when serious allegations of fraud are involved.
The court emphasized the serious nature of economic offences, affirming that bail is the exception, especially when substantial financial loss to the state is involved.
The court ruled that economic offences require a stringent approach in bail matters, emphasizing the gravity of allegations and evidence against the accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.