TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruled out and thus having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case it does not appear to be a fit case where anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant/ accused. The anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Shishir Gupta @ Parul Gupta is hereby rejected. - Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2069 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 12-5-2022 - Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J. For the Applicant : Aushim Luthra For the Opposite Party : A.S.G.I.,Manu Vardhana ORDER Heard Shri Vibhour Gupta and Ms. Mahak Gupta, learned counsels for the applicant as well as Shri Manu Vardhana, learned counsel appearing for Union of India and perused the record. The presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the applicant that he is involved in the business of sale and purchase of Petroleum Bitumen for which the applicant can work under him as an employee and his role would be to coordinate with the Authorities and the applicant who is an illiterate person as having studied only till 9th standard agreed to work as an employee of Shri Abhishek Jain and the role of the applicant was primarily of coordinating with various parties over the phone and he has never been consciously involved in any illegal activities of passing of fraudulent I.T.C. It is further submitted that business was managed, run and owned by Shri Abhishek Jain and he was paying his government duties and taxes on regular basis and were also filing returns of G.S.T. within ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cility of anticipatory bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty and he undertakes that he will cooperate in the investigation. Learned counsels for the applicant has also referred and relied on orders passed in Writ Petition (Crl) No. 221/2020; Shyam Khemani Vs. State of M.P. , dated 31.08.2022, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 118/2019, Mukesh Manakchand Kothari vs. Union of India, dated 26.04.2019, Writ Petition (Crl.) 212/20-19, Gaj Raj Sing Baid vs. Union of India , dated 09.08.2019., Writ Petition No. (Crl.) No. 336 of 2018, Radhika Aggarwal vs. Union of India , dated 08.01.2019 and Writ Petition (Crl). 267/2019, Namrata Jain and another, dated 30.09.2019. Learned counsel for the applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition (Crl.) No. 267 of 2019, order dated 30.09.2019, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India Anr. , Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 336 of 2018 order dated 08.,01.2019, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Gaj Raj Singh Baid Vs. Union of India Anr. , Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 212 of 2019, order dated 09.08.2019, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Shri Manuvardhana, learned counsel for Union of India vehemently submits that on a routine analysis of financial year wise inward supply it was noticed that about 18 inward suppliers were having gross self mismatch between the ITC availed by the party in GSTR-3 B as compared to ITC accumulated as per GSTR- 2 A of the party. The registration status of most ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stigation of the case is going on and for proper investigation of the case the custodial interrogation of the applicant would be required as it is a matter of huge tax evasion running into lakhs of rupees. It is also submitted that all legal formalities had been followed and adhered to during the course of investigation but the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation and there is possibility that he may tamper the evidence and thus having regard to the gravity of offences and the possibility of his fleeing from the course of law his anticipatory bail application may kindly be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record as well as having gone through the judgment cited by learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s stated herein before the custodial interrogation of the applicant could not be ruled out and thus having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case it does not appear to be a fit case where anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant/ accused. Thus, anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Shishir Gupta @ Parul Gupta is hereby rejected. The applicant may move an appropriate regular bail application before the appropriate Court and if such an application is moved by the applicant within reasonable time the trial court shall be under an obligation to dispose of the same after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties, strictly in accordance with law, with expedition. - - Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
