Sandeep Kumar And Another vs. State Of Punjab
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-4499 he was runnin the name and had been wo hatching consp H.B. wires, M Kumar, Karan were proprieto the complaina named accuse by the present Section 70 of Act') from the July 2024. On know that the had prepared f SGST on acco payment of tax He also came been registere Ludhiana, for contacted the lakhs. He requ along with int 95-2026 (O&M) 2 ng the business of manufacturin style of M/s B.S. & Sons. The pe orking as brokers/mediators fo piracy with each other, they allu M.S. bar, etc. at reasonable rat n, Anurag Tiwari, Vikram Sin ors of different firms. By falling ant had purchased goods vide dif ed and payment was made on th petitioners. The complainant, h f Punjab Goods and Services Ta e office of Assistant Commissio n reaching the office of the Assis petitioners, in connivance with forged and fabricated bills and h ount of supply of goods to the x, though the said amount had be to know that a case bearing FIR ed against the petitioners at P committing offences of cheating petitioners as he was asked to uested the petitioners to reimbu erest as it stood paid by him, bu
ng of cycle and auto parts under etitioners, who are real brothers, r trading of iron goods. By ured the complainant to purchase tes from the accused Ashwani gh, and Varinder Kumar, who g into the trap of the petitioners, fferent invoices from the above- he account numbers as provided however, received a notice under ax Act, 2017 (for short, 'PGST oner of State Tax, Jalandhar, in stant Commissioner, he came to h the above-named five accused, had not deposited the CGST and complainant in order to evade een taken from the complainant. R No. 144 dated 04.07.2024 had Police Station Division No. 6, g and forgery. The complainant o deposit tax amount of Rs. 20 urse the aforementioned amount ut the petitioners flatly refused to
r , y e i o , - d r T n o , d e . d , t 0 t o AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.08 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-4499 do so and rat liability impos prayed for tak
A initiated and a moved an app by the Court dated 03.08.20 this petition an 4. It Sandeep Kum bearing FIR petitioners. Th on 04.07.2024 though arraign has also been against the pet FIR No.144 st offence of ch interrogation i that the petitio No. 144. He is 95-2026 (O&M) 3 ther proclaimed that they had sed upon the complainant to che ing action in the matter. After registration of FIR, invest are underway. Apprehending the plication for grant of anticipatory of Learned Additional Session
Petitioner No. 2 has been nd as such the petition qua him h t is argued by learned Senior mar that he has been falsely im No. 144 dated 04.07.2024 ha he petitioner No.1-Sandeep Kum 4 and had been extended benefit ned as accused at the initial stage presented in that case. The FI titioner No.1 as double jeopardy tands registered against him. Th heating are not attracted agai is not required in this case, espe oner has already been granted r s ready to join investigation. No hatched conspiracy to get tax eat and defraud him. As such, he tigation proceedings have been eir arrest, the petitioners jointly y bail, which has been dismissed ns Judge, Ludhiana vide order arrested during the pendency of has been rendered infructuous. r counsel for petitioner No.1- mplicated in this case. A case as been registered against the mar was arrested in the said case of bail, whereas petitioner No.2, es, had been exonerated. Challan R of this case has been lodged since on the similar allegations, he ingredients for commission of inst him at all. His custodial ecially keeping in view the fact regular bail in case bearing FIR o recovery is to be effected from
x e n y d r f - e e e , n d , f l t R m AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.08 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-4499 him. It is, the arrest bail.
P the complaina Sandeep Kum accused, had purchase good for those good complainant, h with the conc complainant. I present petitio existent. The offences stand amount of Rs. firm M/s Shiv fictitious. Sim account of ano existent. The existent firms same and the depositing the Rs. 20 lakhs o 95-2026 (O&M) 4 erefore, argued that he deserves Per contra, learned State counsel, ant, has argued that the allegati mar are specific and serious in n hatched a conspiracy and ha ds through their brokership and ds in the account of some firm had no knowledge. Those firms cerned department even after It has also been revealed that t oners in the name of those fir complicity of the petitioner No. ds prima facie established. It h 18 lakhs was withdrawn by peti v Enterprises on 09.11.2023, a milarly, petitioner No.1 had als other firm, M/s Raj Enterprises, e allegations make out a case of and supplying material to the c ereby receiving GST amount f same. The complainant was cau on account of act and conduct
s to be extended benefit of pre- , assisted by learned counsel for ions against the petitioner No.1 nature as he, along with the co- ad induced the complainant to had made the complainant pay ms, qua ownership of which the did not make payment of GST receiving the money from the the invoices were issued by the rms which were, in fact, non- .1 in the commission of subject has also been revealed that an itioner No.2 from the account of and the said firm was, in fact, so withdrawn money from the , which is also found to be non- f preparing forged bills of non- complainant on the basis of the from the complainant, but not used wrongful loss to the tune of of the petitioners. It cannot be
- r
- o y e T e e - t n f , e - - e t f e AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.08 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-4499 stated to be a c investigation i required. It is allowed.
T counsel for the 7. T accused, is all different firm accounts of f fabricated inv wrongful loss with undue ta department. T serious in natu the subject of anticipatory b only as a per certainly not interrogation o shall leave ma investigation. 95-2026 (O&M) 5 case of double jeopardy. For the in the matter, custodial interrog s, therefore, argued that the p This Court has heard the rival e parties. The petitioner No.1, along with th leged to have induced the comp s through their brokership and firms that have been found to voices were allegedly prepared to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs to th ax liability, while evading depos The allegations leveled against th ure, prima facie establishing his c ffences. The case is at its nasc ail to an accused can be grante rson couched in comparative s disclose all the facts within hi of the petitioner No.1 is denied t any glaring loopholes and gaps, The Court is also required to s
purpose of thorough and proper gation of the petitioner No.1 is etition does not deserve to be submissions made by learned he petitioner No.2 and other co- plainant to purchase goods from to make payment in the bank o be non-existent. Forged and with the intention of causing he complainant by saddling him sit of the collected tax with the he petitioner No.1 are grave and complicity in the commission of ent stage. It is well settled that ed in exceptional circumstances safety of pre-arrest bail would s knowledge. In case custodial to the Investigating Agency, that thereby adversely effecting the see that an order of anticipatory
r s e d - m k d g m e d f t s d l t e y AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.08 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRM-M-4499 bail does not o by the trial C grant of pre-ar exceptional c consideration conviction ma ordinary circu petitioner. Fo the subject of record to show No.1, the cus consideration opinion that th dismissed.
It not be constru case and shall 9. S if any, is rende
2026 Amit Sharma 95-2026 (O&M) 6 operate as inroad in the normal le Court. It is well settled proposit rrest bail are to be exercised by circumstances and with grea the nature of the accusation ay entail. In the instant case, umstance is, however, made out or the purpose of eliciting inform ffences had been committed by w connection between the firm stodial interrogation of petition the above discussed facts, th he petition deserves to be dism t is, however, clarified that the ued as an expression of opinion o not influence the outcome of the Since the main petition has been ered infructuous. ( Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No egal procedure of criminal cases tion of law that the powers for the Court in extra-ordinary and at caution while taking into n and the sentence which the no such exceptional or extra- t from the pleas as taken by the mation as to the manner in which the petitioner No.1, to procure m Raj Enterprises and petitioner ner No.1 is must. Taking into his Court is of the considered missed. Accordingly the same is observations made above shall of this Court on the merits of the e trial in any manner. dismissed, pending application, (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE - Yes/No
s r d o e - e h e r o d s l e , AMIT SHARMA 2026.09.08 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.