Economic offences require a distinct approach in bail matters due to their serious implications for public interest and the economy.

CAV ORDER

By way of the present bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, the petitioner has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the C.R No. 11198042230065 of 2023 registered with Palitana Town Police Station, Bhavnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 , 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 & U/S. 66(C). 66(D), 71 & 72 of the 1.T. Act.

2. Brief facts emerging from the FIR are that The FIR has been filed by one Mihir Vijaybhai Vyas essentially alleging that the accused persons as mentioned in the FIR, almost 8 months prior from 10.02.23 in collusion with each other by making conspiracy had done unlawful act. It is alleged that the accused persons misused other people's adhar card by making them linked to different phone numbers, obtained pan cards, made false documents and used them as genuine one. It is also alleged that the accused persons by using those false documents created bogus firms and by doing so obtained bogus GSTN numbers on such bogus firms. The said firms and GSTN numbers were used for tax evasion. With aforesaid and certain other allegations FIR came to be filled against the accused persons.

3. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.J M Panchal appearing with learned Mr.Hardik H Dave, learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP Mr.H K Patel, for the respondent – State.

4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Panchal for the applicant would submit that neither the petitioner is named in the FIR; nor he was part of the first charge-sheet filed after the investigation. He would submit that he was not event part of the subsequent and supplementary charge-sheets; but later on, from the statement of co-accused, name of the petitioner came to be involved in the offence in question. He would further submit that as per the allegations levelled by the prosecution, the petitioner is involved in purchasing the bogus GST credit, as also in sending the money through Angadiya. He would submit that this fact according to the prosecution was discerned from the statement of co-accused–Mesan @ Mesanabba @ Chaos Alibhai Kerun.

4.1 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Panchal would further submit that though the allegations are levelled against the petitioner based on the statement of co-accused, no documentary evidence produced on record would indicate that by bogus and fabricated bills, the petitioner has availed the wrong GST credit or has sent the money through Angadiya. He would further submit that allegations levelled against the petitioner are false as the petitioner is not a proprietor or partners in any of the firm which could permit the petitioner to raise bogus and fabricated bill to avail wrong input of GST credit and therefore allegations made against the petitioner prima facie failed to establish the case of the prosecution.

4.2 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Panchal would further submit that since more than one charge-sheet are filed in the present case demonstrate that the investigation is virtually completed against the petitioner who stands at sr. no. 84 in the column of accused person in the charge-sheet. He would further submit that few of the accused have been enlarged on regular bail by the coordinate Bench of this court which attracts the principle of parity and thus the petitioner who is ready and willing to co- operate with the investigation may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

4.3 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Panchal would further submit that since the case against the petitioner is relatable to the documentary evidence and all the documents qua the alleged offence is now in custody of the IO, the question does not arise for custodial interrogation and therefore also the petitioner may be given anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions as may be deemed, fit and proper by this court.

5. Per contra , Learned APP appearing for the respondent– State while strenuously objecting to grant of anticipatory bail would