TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being required in any other cases. - CRM-M-33555-2021 - - - Dated:- 15-9-2021 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anurag Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Kapish Chawla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Manish Dadwal, AAG, Haryana. (Through Video Conferencing) **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral) This is the first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.42 dated 06.01.2019 under Sections 420,467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat. In the present case, FIR was registered by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Panipat on the allegation that one Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Daya Nand Singh was running a proprietorship firm, namely, M/s Saksham Enterprises and he had got himself registered under Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short the Act of 2017 ), bearing GSTIN 06AWZPK9294K1ZC. It has been alleged that inquiries regarding the genuineness of the firm were conducted and that the said dealer had uploaded a rent agreement as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 7,000/- has been made from the petitioner, which does not even remotely link the petitioner with the alleged offence. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in CRM-M-12051-2020, by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.06.2021 titled as Mewa Singh Vs. State of Punjab and the judgment passed in CRM-M-12997-2020 titled as Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana , to contend that mere implication on account of disclosure statement should not come in the way of grant of bail to the petitioner. The relevant portion of Daljit Singh's (supra) judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- Petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case bearing FIR No.188 dated 08.04.2020 registered under Sections 15, 18, 27A, 29 of NDPS Act, under Sections 140, 188, 216, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC and under Section 6 of Official Secret Act at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. Petitioner has been implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused from whom 248 kgs of poppy husk, 1 Kg 500 grams of opium and 199 Kgs khaskhas were recovered. FIR was registered on the basis of secret information, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be led in that context at the relevant stage. Petitioner has joined the investigation, but learned State counsel seeks custody of the petitioner on the aforesaid premise. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner having involved on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused namely Balbir and Rajinder is hit by the ratio of Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2013 wherein it has been observed that the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of NDPS Act are the police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Any confessional statement made before the police officer would be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under NDPS Act. In view of aforesaid position, it would be just and appropriate to confirm order dated 27.05.2020, without meaning anything on the merits of the case. Ordered accordingly. However, the petitioner shall keep on joining the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Officer and shall abide by the conditions as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot been named as accused in the case and thus, the entire case of the prosecution fails inasmuch as the petitioner has not even taken the input tax credit but it is the said Susheel Garg and Amit Garg who had taken the input tax credit and, thus, even if the prosecution wishes to establish the link to the petitioner, although there is no legally admissible evidence on the said aspect, then also the said Susheel Garg and Amit Garg have to be the primary accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in all the said cases on the basis of same/similar allegations and in fact even in the said cases, there is nothing to link the petitioner. It is also pointed out that in fact the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail in one of the cases by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and has also been granted regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench in one case. It is submitted that the Petitioner has been granted bail in 11 cases, and is in custody in the other 10 cases. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.T. and others reported as 2012 (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey used to transfer the payments against the goods so received through RTGS as per instructions of Sandeep Sharma and Dinesh Bansal from their accounts. Thus, as far as their dealings were concerned, the same were only with Sandeep Sharma and Dinesh Bansal and not with the petitioner. It is further apparent from the said statement that the amount of input tax credit taken by them has already been deposited in favour of the Government and the said amount included the amount which was in issue in the present case as is apparent from page 48 of the paper book in which reference has been made to the present FIR which is listed at Sr. No.14. To the similar effect is the statement of Amit Garg, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow:- XXX----XXX----Later we came to know that these firms belong to different proprietors and organizer and conspirators of these all firms are Sandeep Sharma, Govind Sharma and Dinesh Bansal. They use to delivers us original goods and forged bills and on asking of Dinesh Bansal and Sandeep Sharma we sent the amounts of purchase of original goods from our bank account of Amit Spinning Mill of HDFC Bank Account No.50200022636225, G.G. Spunte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner, also carries weight. It is further pointed out that a perusal of Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 would show that in cases where the amount of tax evaded is more than 5 crores, then the same is cognizable and non-bailable and in cases where the amount of tax evaded is less than 5 crores, as in the present case, the offence would be bailable. It is submitted that although the FIR has been registered under Sections 420,467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B IPC, the gist of the allegation is with respect to the evasion of GST, which would be governed by the 2017 Act. It is also highlighted that even the offences under IPC would not prima facie be made out against the Petitioner as there is no handwriting expert report suggesting that any forgery has been done by the petitioner nor is there anything to show that the petitioner has cheated the authorities as no amount of input tax credit has been credited into the account of the Petitioner and thus, it is submitted that the petitioner would be entitled to bail. The said arguments raises very debatable issues as to whether the petitioner can be linked with the alleged crime. With respect to the other cases, it is the vehement argument of le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. CRM-M-19218-2021, titled as Govind Vs. State of Haryana , regular bail has been granted by this Court by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow:- The matter has been taken up through videoconferencing on account of lockdown due to outbreak of pandemic COVID-19. In this first regular bail application filed in case FIR No. 27 dated 06.01.2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat by the petitioner Govind an accountant with Firm M/s Zensar Enterprises, Panipat. The primary allegations are as follows:- Jarnail Singh one of the proprietors of the firm got registered the firm under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short, 'CGST Act') and Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short 'HGST Act'). The allegations against the principal accused Jarnail Singh are that he had got registration of the firm on the basis of forged and fabricated documents to avail of input tax credit (ITC) and on revelation of the modus operandi different FIR's numbering 23 were got registered against various firms including that of Jarnail Singh. The pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon ble Supreme Court has held as under:- As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances moreso, the fact that the Petitioner has been in custody since 27.11.2020 and there are as many as 23 witnesses, out of which none have been examined and the trial is likely to take time and the amount of GST said to have been evaded has already been recovered from Susheel Garg and Amit Garg and no amount of input tax credit has been credited in the account of the present petitioner and also since the petitioner was not named in the FIR and also since there are several debatable issues/arguments in the present case which have been elaborated hereinabove, and although the same would be finally adjudicated upon in the trial, this Court considers it fit to allow the present petition and grant regular bail to the petitioner. Acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
