Lalit Narayan Jha @ Lalit Kant Jha vs. The State Of Ap

This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for release of accused person, namely, Shri Bipin Kumar Jha, on bail in connection with Itanagar P.S. Case No. 182/2024, under Sections 120(B)/420/467/468/471/473/474 IPC, who has been arrested on 28.12.2024. 3. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of this bail application is that on 03.10.2024, a written FIR was lodged before the Officer-in- Charge, Itanagar Police Station by one Shri Sourav Kumar Pandey, Inspector (Anti-Evasion), CGST & CX Itanagar Commissionerate to the effect that in the course of investigation against M/s Siddhi Vinayak Trade Merchants, legal name Rakesh Sharma, having GSTIN:120ZYPS8590C1ZC, credible information reveals that the firm had fraudulently obtained GST ID using a forged rent agreement bearing a fake seal of JMFC, Changlang alongwith other forged documents including Aadhar card, PAN card and electricity bills. The modus operandi has been passage of fake Input Tax Credit of Rs.99.31 Crores to 58 firm registered across 11 States between October’2023-March’2024. The fictitious firm raised fake invoices amounting to Rs.658.55 Crores, defrauding the government exchequer of Rs. 99.31 crores. It further alleged that it is likely that the said firm has been created by one Ashutosh Kumar Jha along with others and they are part of a larger nation-wide gang which commits forgery to create GST registration, establish bogus firms and then cheats the public exchequer of huge sum of money by passing fake ITC.

Upon receipt of the above FIR, a case was registered being Itanagar

Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel for the applicant submits that a proceedings being complaint case No.87/2024 is pending before the competent court below. The Superintendent GST and Cx. Itanagar Commissioonerate, prayed for issuance of a warrant of arrest under Section 72 read with Section 80/81 BNSS, 2023 for offence committed under Sections 206/207/208 BNS, 2023 read with Section 70 the CGST Act, 2017. Since, the proceedings No.87/2024 is pending before the learned court, the FIR dated 03.10.2024, on the self same allegation could not have been lodged. The registration and investigation of the Itanagar P.S. Case No.182/2024, on the same allegation is not permissible under law. The case has been registered under Indian Penal Code which has already been repealed after coming into force of BNS, 2023. He submits that no notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023 was served upon the accused person. However, the I.O of the case filed an application dated 20.11.2024 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, praying for issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest against the accused person, accordingly, Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest was issued and thereafter, the accused person was arrested which, according to him, is against the due

Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel submits that it is clearly revealed that present case being Itanagar P.S. Case No.182/2024 has been registered based on the subsequent complaint by GST Department, while the complain is pending before the learned Court. He submits that present case has been filed on identical allegation by suppressing the fact that the first complaint being complaint Case No.87/2024 is pending before the learned Court, which is barred under the law. He submits that the Investigating Officer has obtained the warrant of arrest mechanically and also the complainant has suppressed material facts and issues. Therefore, the arrest of the accused person is illegal and against the law.

It is also the submission of Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel that the accused person has not been interrogated by the Investigating Officer which shows that the custodial interrogation of the arrested accused person is not required in the present case. It is further submitted that the allegation against the accused person which reveals from the objection to the bail application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, first Class, is that the accused person has failed to honour the departmental summons issued to him on the ground that the accused is required to appear physically before the department as there are 41 transactions on account of monthly salary paid to the Bittu Kumar Jha, Sonu Kumar Jha and Bipin Kumar Jha. Therefore, no case against the present accused is made out.

Finally, Mr. K. Lollen, learned counsel submits that custodial

Mr. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that investigation establishes prima facie culpability of the accused person along with other co-accused persons as he is associated with a part of bigger network that specializes in forging documents of Government functionaries and using them thereby had incurred loss to the government exchequer of Rs. 99.31 Crores. The grant of bail to the accused person at this stage would jeopardize the investigation which are on to uncover the entire length and breadth of the forgery and cheating network. While referring to the materials in the case diary, she submits that the fraudulent activities of the accused person along with the co- accused(s) have caused wrongful loss to the exchequer which had impacted the public revenue. She further submits that during the custodial interrogation, the accused persons including the present accused person have admitted to the crime and have provided crucial information about accomplishes and hidden evidences. The accused persons have been evading legal summons and arrest by frequently changing their locations indicating their intent to avoid the process of law. Since, many persons are involved in the case there is a likelihood of threatening the witnesses by the accused persons. Therefore, at this stage, the accused person is not Page No.# 6/8 entitled to be released on bail as the same would hamper the investigation of such serious offence involving the economic offences. As such, the same may be rejected.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

It is seen that the accused person has stated that around September and October’ 2023, his brother Ashutosh Jha (co-accused) informed him that he had procured the credential of the firm M/s Siddhi Vinayak Trade Merchants from one Nagendra Dubey, an associate who creates fake firms for them. M/s Siddhi Vinayak Trade Merchants, a fake firm created in Arunachal Pradesh by the Dubey, was used to generate fake invoices and distributed them to various businesses in exchange for cash. It is also stated by the accused that they operate as a consultancy, a firm providing GST consultancy services; additionally they run around 23 similar firms registered using different combination of their e-mail IDs and phone numbers and they have been involved in the sale of fraudulent GST input tax credit in exchange for cash.

On perusal of the case diary, it reveals that around 10 more firms registered in Arunachal Pradesh had used forged rents agreements bearing the forged seal and sign of JMFC, Changlang, and 5(five) others firms registered in Arunachal Pradesh have used similar forged Aadhar Cards and Pan Cards, indicating a larger conspiracy by organised gang. The records further reveals that present accused along with other co- accused and with some unidentified persons have created around 34 fake

Having considered the materials obtained in the case diary, it is seen that the alleged fraudulent activities have caused a wrongful loss of Rs.

31 Crores to the State Exchequer which definitely would impact the public revenue. However, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of the view that, at this stage if the accused person is released on bail, same would hamper the investigation as it may influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439, has observed that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. It further held that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the Page No.# 8/8 public/State and other similar considerations.

Having carefully considered the materials and seriousness of offences alleged in the present case, I am of the considered view that the accused person namely, Shri Bipin Kumar Jha, is not entitled to be admitted to bail at this stage as releasing him on bail, would hamper the investigation and may influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. Consequently, bail application stands rejected at this stage and disposed of.