Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2022 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 394 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURTSeeking grant of anticipatory bail - shell/defunct companies - issuance of invoices without providing any services - offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 418, 420, 465, 468, 471, 409, 209, 109 read with 120b of the India Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) read with 13(1)(c), read with 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT:- In P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Apex Court made it clear that granting anticipatory bail at the state of investigation will frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the Court and grant of anticipatory bail in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. A perusal of the report lodged by the Chairman of the Corporation/APSSDC shows that as per the scrutiny of records by ADGGI, it is revealed that training software development including various sub-modules shown as supplied by M/s Skillar to Design Tech were purchased by Skillare from 1) M/s. Allied Computers International (Asia) Ltd. Mumbai (for short ‘ACI’), 2) M/s. Patrick Info Services Private Limited, M/s. I.T. Smith Solutions Private Limited, 3) M/s. Inweb Info Services Private Limited all based at New Delhi, 4) M/s. Arihanth Traders, New Delhi, 5) M/s. G.A. Sales Private Limited, New Delhi. According to the prosecution, out of five, petitioner purchased three shell companies. The prosecution also got information that wife of the petitioner is one of the Directors in two companies out of three companies purchased by the petitioner - Also, the petitioner avoided to appear before investigating officer during crucial period. Though learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no documents were filed by the prosecution regarding the purchase of shell companies referred to supra, by the petitioner, this is not the stage where this Court goes into all those aspects. All these aspects will be considered during the course of trial. Considering the amount involved in this crime is about Rs. 371,00,00,000/- keeping in view the gravity of the crime, it being socio-economic offence, petitioner is not entitled for pre-arrest bail - petition dismissed.
|