TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment and presently, there does not seem to be any possibility of their being won over. Without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, it is ordered that the petitioners be released on regular bail in the case, subject to their furnishing requisite bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned - Petition allowed. - CRM-M-36421-2021 (O&M) and CRM-M-44819-2021 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 10-5-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ Present: Ms. Aashna Gill, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-36421-2021. Mr. S.S. Swaich, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-44819-2021. Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, DAG, Haryana. ... Manoj Bajaj, J. (Oral) Petitioners have pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this, instant First Information Report was lodged. Learned counsel have argued that as per prosecution, a firm, namely, M/s Mansi Alloys alleged to be proprietorship firm of Rinku Aggarwal was floated by accused persons in order to make wrongful gain by claiming input tax credit against invoices without supply of materials and the petitioners, namely, Ashish Kumar and Sonu Kumar Khuswah are not the beneficiaries of the alleged crime, as they have been implicated on the basis of criminal conspiracy. It is argued that the FIR was registered in the year 2019 and after a long delay, the petitioner Ashish Kumar was implicated on the strength of statement made by Rinku Aggarwal recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-2), who stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of firm. Learned State counsel further submitted that these accused persons are also involved in case FIR No.111 dated 25.04.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 IPC Sections 132(1)(i) and 132(1)(iv) CGST Act, 2017, and Sections 65, 66D and 71 IT Act, 2000, at Police Station Cheeka, District Kaithal, wherein in a similar manner, they had floated another firm, namely, M/s B.K. Steel, therefore, the petitioners do not deserve the concession of bail. However, it is not disputed that the role of these petitioners is distinguishable from the other co-accused Rahul Sharma, who is instrumental in taking tax benefits in the name of nonexistent firm. He states that only two prosecution witnesses have been examined o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
