Goldy Walia Alias Janak Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Goldy Walia @ Janak Singh, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, apprehending arrest in FIR No. 77 dated 02.06.2023, registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, under Sections 408, 420, and 120-B IPC. The complainant alleged that his accountant, Amarjit Singh Bha, facilitated fraudulent GST refunds. The petitioner and others allegedly prepared fake invoices for M/s. Luthra and Company, leading to the complainant paying GST of Rs. 18,00,020/-. This amount was then allegedly deposited into the account of Krishna Enterprises and withdrawn. The complainant further alleged that a total of Rs. 1,19,35,880/- was fraudulently deposited as GST refunds based on fake invoices, with payments diverted to various other bank accounts. The petitioner claims no money was received by him, that the complainant has compromised with him, and that the allegations are primarily against the absconding accountant.

Held

The Court held that the allegations prima facie indicted the petitioner for preparing fake invoices amounting to Rs. 1 crore in connivance with co-accused, leading to the fraudulent transfer of money. The Court characterized the case as one of cheating and thuggery, not simple misappropriation. Analyzing the pleadings and the State's status report, the Court found that the petitioner's involvement was prima facie established. The Court noted that the petitioner, as an agent of M/s. Luthra and Company, allegedly prepared fake invoices and facilitated the fraudulent deposit and withdrawal of GST payments. Given the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented, the Court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail, as the parameters for such relief are distinct from regular bail. The Court found that the impact of the alleged crime did not justify anticipatory bail and that further discussion might prejudice the petitioner. Therefore, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, considering the allegations of preparing fake invoices and fraudulent diversion of GST refunds? The petitioner argued that he did not receive any money, that the complainant had compromised the matter, and that the investigating agency should not act as a recovery agent. He relied on judgments in Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar, and contended that the allegations against him were unsubstantiated without transcripts of call detail records. He also cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and a notification from the High Court regarding pre-arrest bail. The State and the complainant opposed the bail, asserting that the petitioner, as an agent of M/s. Luthra and Company, connived with the accountant to prepare fake invoices and fraudulently divert GST refunds. They highlighted evidence of call records, the creation of fake forms, and the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the scam and recover funds, arguing that the case involved cheating and thuggery, not mere misappropriation.