286 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19076-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision: 05.03.2025 Pawan Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

Inspector (Preventive), Central Goods and Services Tax ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Anoop Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel, CBIC with Mr. Samridhi Jain, Advocate and Mr. Akash Khurana, Advocate for the respondent.

*******

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. Present petition is preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of the order dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-11) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the petition praying for relaxation of conditions prescribed for grant of default bail, imposed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, vide order dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure P-1), has been dismissed.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The facts, tersely put, are that the petitioner was implicated as an accused in a complaint under Section 132(1)(b) & (c) punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘CGST Act’) read with the corresponding provisions of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2007 (for short ‘PGST Act’), and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘IGST Act’). According to the allegations in the complaint, co-accused Sahil Jain was the principal orchestrator of a fraudulent scheme involving fake transactions. He allegedly created 14 firms in the names of his family members and close associates, designating them as proprietors or partners. By generating fictitious invoices, he unlawfully availed ineligible input tax credit and further passed on fraudulent input tax credits to purchasers ₹

based on these fabricated invoices amounting to 17.65 crores. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the case on 12.01.2021. However, the prosecution failed to complete the investigation and to file the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. within the statutory period of 60 days. Consequently, petitioner Pawan Kumar moved an application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking default bail. The said application was allowed and he was accordingly granted bail vide order dated 15.03.2021 subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- (Rupees one crore ten lacs only) with two sureties in the like amount (at least one surety being local) among other conditions. After this, the petitioner approached this Court to assail the conditions of bail by filing CRM-M-16487 of 2021, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.05.2021 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the petitioner sought modification of bail conditions under Section 440 of Cr.P.C. before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, which was dismissed vide order 18.07.2022 (Annexure P-3). Subsequently, the petitioner preferred two petitions i.e. a civil writ petition seeking directions to release the petitioner on personal bonds and a petition challenging the order dated 18.07.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. This Court, vide orders dated 05.09.2022 and 15.03.2023 (Annexures P-4 and P-5), permitted the petitioner to withdraw the said petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedy available under law. The petitioner again approached the Court of first instance seeking modification of default bail conditions, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.04.2023 (Annexure P-7). In order to challenge the order dated 10.04.2023, the petitioner knocked the doors of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn (Annexure P-8). Thereafter, the petitioner again approached learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, by filing revision and the said petition also met with the same fate as earlier vide order dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-11).

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the conditions imposed by l