2023 (6) TMI 248 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - running of fake firms based on forged and fictitious documents - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SUMITHA PRADEEP VERSUS ARUN KUMAR C.K ANR. 2022 (10) TMI 1177 - SUPREME COURT held that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima facie case against the accused. In the instant case a perusal of the affidavits of the State dated 2.3.2023 and 27.03.2023 would show the manner in which the investigation was conducted and the specific role played by the petitioner. In fact he and his co-accused had set up a fictitious firm/companies and thereby cheated the government of crores of rupees. Thus an offence is prima facie established against him. Even otherwise recoveries of various documents are to be effected from the petitioner and the names of the real beneficiaries are to be revealed. Therefore the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly required. The present petition for grant of anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving FIR under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC and Section 66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, related to the utilization of fake documents for obtaining bogus GST registrations and causing revenue loss to the government.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Anticipatory Bail Application
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail contending that he was falsely implicated with no specific role assigned to him. The petitioner's counsel argued that as he was willing to cooperate and the case relied on documentary evidence, custodial interrogation was unnecessary. However, the State argued that the petitioner was a main accused involved in creating fake firms and cheating the government of crores of rupees under the pretext of GST. The State contended that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover documents and reveal the real beneficiaries.

Issue 2: Prima Facie Case
The court referred to a Supreme Court case emphasizing that the first consideration for anticipatory bail is the prima facie case against the accused. The court noted the specific role played by the petitioner in setting up fictitious firms and causing revenue loss. The investigation revealed the petitioner's involvement in running fake firms based on forged documents, establishing a prima facie case against him. The court highlighted the necessity of custodial interrogation to recover documents and uncover the real beneficiaries.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail without commenting on the case's merits, considering the established prima facie case against the petitioner and the need for custodial interrogation to recover evidence and reveal the real beneficiaries involved in the fraudulent activities related to fake GST registrations causing revenue loss to the government.