Mohd. Kaish Rehmani Imtiyaz Ahmad vs. State Of Maharashtra

Facts

The applicant, Mohd. Kaish Rehmani, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 509 of 2024 registered at MIDC Bhosari Police Station, Pune. The prosecution alleged that the applicant misused the complainant's Aadhar Card, PAN Card, and Light Bill to incorporate a company named D.B. Enterprises. Through this company, the applicant allegedly conducted business transactions between April 3, 2023, and April 29, 2023, amounting to Rs. 5,76,19,826/-. It was further alleged that the applicant collected GST amounting to Rs. 1,03,71,568.70/- from customers but failed to pay it to the government. The applicant claimed no involvement in the alleged non-payment of GST and suggested the report might be false to avoid GST liability, stating custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Held

The Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. The reasoning was based on the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer from witnesses who had transacted with D.B. Enterprises. These witnesses indicated that the applicant was managing the company's affairs. The Court found these statements sufficient to deny anticipatory bail. The application for anticipatory bail was consequently rejected. No specific issue regarding GST law was decided, as the primary focus was on the applicant's role in the company and the alleged criminal acts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and the alleged non-payment of GST collected. Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: The applicant argued that he had no connection with the alleged non-payment of GST. He contended that the complaint might have been filed to evade GST liability and that no recovery was required from him, thus negating the need for custodial interrogation. Respondent/State: The State, through the learned APP, submitted that the Investigating Officer had recorded statements from witnesses who had engaged in business transactions with D.B. Enterprises. These witnesses reportedly stated that the applicant was managing the affairs of the company.