9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45540 of 2024 (Vikarant Singhal and another vs. Union of India) vide order dated 25.02.2025. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.10.2024, having no criminal history. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party could not dispute the aforesaid fact. 5. The order dated 25.02.2025 is quoted herein-below: "1. Applicants-Vikrant Singhal and Sachin Singhal have filed this application under Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case No. 1101 of 2024, titled Union of India Vs. Vikrant Singhal and others, under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, DGGI Ghaziabad. The applicants are in custody since their arrest on 17.10.2024. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Director General of GST Intelligence, Ghaziabad (in short 'DGGI Ghaziabad') Regional Unit instituted a complaint dated 13.12.2024 against nine accused persons, wherein it is alleged that an intelligence input regarding indulgence of the accused persons in passing on of fraudulent Input Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avened various provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and prays for taking cognizance of above mentioned offences for the purpose of their prosecution and punishment. A copy of the complaint/ charge sheet dated 13.12.2024 is appended as Annexure SA-1 with supplementary affidavit filed by applicants. 3. The accused-applicants had applied for grant of regular bail before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate and District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, but the said concession was declined vide respective orders dated 25.10.2024 and 26.10.2024. Hence, this application. 4. Pursuant to the advance notice, Mr. Parv Agrawal, learned counsel for Union of India-opposite party had appeared and filed his counter affidavit dated 16.1.2025 and additional counter affidavit dated 10.2.2025. 5. Learned counsel for applicants has argued that the applicants are directors of firms namely, M/s Siwon Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/s MS Singhal Trading India Pvt. Ltd., who were engaged in the business of trading TMT bar, iron rod and steel and the said companies were registered under the GST Act with the respective GST Nos. 07AAXCS0492A1Z7 and 07AAPCM4702K1Z7, but because of the breakout ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have suffered confession relating to their involvement in the commission of crime, and further, incriminating evidence collected has been relied upon in the complaint/charge sheet dated 13.12.2024. Learned counsel submits that total amount of fraudulent Input Tax Credit comes to Rs. 885 crores, wherein 143 firms were involved, which were created by the accused persons. Learned counsel for Union of India has further referred to the complaint dated 13.12.2024 and contended that the existence verification of these firms was conducted and many firms were found to be non existent. 9. Mr. Parv Agrawal, learned counsel for Union of India has drawn the attention of the Court to the additional counter affidavit dated 10.2.2025 and pointed out that by way of fraudulent Input Tax Credit Rs. 885 crores was passed on to 1267 beneficiaries firms and the recovery of tax proceedings against the said firms have been initiated, and an amount of Rs. 25.17 crores of tax, interest and penalty already stands recovered. According to him, the investigation in the case is in-progress and will take considerable time to conclude as the number of persons involved in the commission of crime is increasing da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion received by the applicants has been disclosed. The sole piece of evidence relied upon by prosecution regarding involvement of accused-applicants with fake firms is the confession of the applicants recorded under Section 70 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but the truthfulness of the same would be tested during trial, which is yet to commence. 12. Concededly, after the detention of the applicants, their physical custody was granted to the prosecution for 120 hours, and thereafter, on 26.10.2024 the applicants were sent in judicial custody. To a pointed query, it is fairly stated by the learned counsel for Union of India that the alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit relates to the transactions for the financial year 2021-22 and 2022-23, and the proceedings for recovery of tax has not been initiated against the applicants, as even the notices for assessment of tax contemplated by Section 74 GST Act have not been issued. 13. No doubt, the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the learned counsel for Union of India have laid down that the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach, for the purposes of bail, but while grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar as the investigation relating to the applicants is concerned, the same has been completed, as the complaint/ charge sheet dated 13.12.2024 has been filed against the applicants and their firms, whereupon the cognizance order dated 13.12.2024 has also been passed. However, the charges against the accused-applicants have not been framed and trial is yet to start. The pendency of the investigation relating to other accused persons would not be a valid ground to deny the concession of regular bail to the applicants. Most importantly, the entire case of the prosecution either hinges upon the documentary evidence or the admission/confession of the accused, and majority of the prosecution witnesses are official witnesses, and at present there does not seem to be any possibility of their being won over. Thus, keeping in view the nature of the trial, period of more than five months undergone by the applicants as an undertrial as well as the fact that there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the applicants, as their further detention behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose. 16. Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
