Raj Kumar Agarwal vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Court found that the FIR and the documents on record indicated the applicant's complicity in the alleged offense. The investigation was ongoing, and at this stage, the necessity of the applicant's custodial interrogation could not be ruled out in the interest of the investigation. The bail objection report revealed that the applicant, as the proprietor of RR Minerals, was involved in the coal business and had allegedly fraudulently shown purchases amounting to Rs. 63,73,975/-. The Court noted his connivance with M/s Purbanchal Minerals in engaging in circular trading through false tax invoices and e-way bills, which resulted in the illegal claiming of a significant amount of Input Tax Credit, causing a loss to the government exchequer. Based on these facts and circumstances, the Court concluded that this was not a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail. The application was accordingly dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Raj Kumar Agarwal, proprietor of R.R. Mineral Resources, sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. This application arose from BI [EO] P.S. Case No. 04/2023, registered under Sections 120B/468/471/420 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged by an Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Guwahati, alleging a criminal conspiracy to defraud the State of revenue. The petitioner's alleged involvement stemmed from his business dealings with M/s Purbanchal Minerals, where a GST registration was obtained. The investigation suggested the petitioner, in connivance with others, engaged in fraudulent supply of coal, creating false tax invoices and e-way bills, and illegally claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC), causing a loss to the government exchequer. The petitioner claimed he was not named in the FIR and was cooperating, while the State argued for custodial interrogation due to collected materials.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with BI [EO] P.S. Case No. 04/2023, considering the allegations of criminal conspiracy, forgery, and cheating under Sections 120B/468/471/420 of the IPC, and the alleged fraudulent claiming of Input Tax Credit under the Assam GST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that his name was not mentioned in the FIR, he was not involved in the alleged offense, and he was ready to cooperate with the investigation. He also cited personal reasons (ailments and a relative's death) for his inability to appear before the Investigating Officer (IO) earlier. Respondent's Contention: The State argued that sufficient materials had been collected against the applicant during the investigation, and his custodial interrogation was necessary in the interest of the investigation. The State also highlighted that the applicant, as proprietor of RR Minerals, allegedly dealt with coal and fraudulently shown purchases amounting to Rs. 63,73,975/-, engaging in circular trading through false invoices and e-way bills, leading to illegal ITC claims and loss to the government.