Anil Kumar S/O Ramniwas vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court dismissed the second bail application. The Court noted that the petitioner's first bail application was dismissed on merits on February 19, 2024, and the Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the SLP against that order. The allegations against the petitioner involve creating seven fake companies, issuing fake good-less invoices, and claiming Input Tax Credit totaling Rs. 20,28,40,841/-, causing a loss to the government. The Court found that the first bail application was dismissed at the charge sheet stage, and no new facts have emerged since then to warrant entertaining the second application. The Court also distinguished the petitioner's case from that of Ashutosh Garg, stating that Garg's case is entirely different and a separate charge sheet was produced against him. Considering the submissions and the seriousness of the alleged offences, the Court concluded that the second bail application deserved dismissal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the bail application.

Facts

The petitioner, Anil Kumar, filed a second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after his first bail application was dismissed on merits by the High Court on February 19, 2024, and his subsequent Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed by the Supreme Court on March 22, 2024. The petitioner was arrested in connection with case No.DGGI/INV/122/2023-GR-F for alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(B)(C)(F) and (I) of the CGST Act, 2017. The allegations include managing seven firms, issuing fake bills for goods not supplied, claiming fake Input Tax Credit (ITC), opening four fake firms, and causing a loss of Rs. 20,28,40,841/- to the government. The petitioner has been in custody for nine months. He argues his case is on parity with Ashutosh Garg, who was granted bail by the Supreme Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on the grounds of prolonged incarceration (nine months) and the maximum punishment for the alleged offences being five years, considering the judgments in Satender Kumar Antil, Dataram Singh, and Arnesh Kumar. 2. Whether the petitioner's case is on parity with that of Ashutosh Garg, who has been enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that his detention was illegal and that the trial court failed to consider relevant Supreme Court judgments. He argues that the maximum punishment is five years, he has been in custody for nine months, and his case is similar to Ashutosh Garg, who has been granted bail. He also suggests that the main accused, Ashutosh Garg, was involved at his instance. Respondent's Arguments: The Union of India (Revenue) opposes the bail application, arguing that the petitioner's case is distinct from Ashutosh Garg's. They highlight that the petitioner's first bail application was dismissed on merits after a detailed order, and no new circumstances have arisen since then. The Supreme Court also dismissed the petitioner's SLP. The Revenue emphasizes the serious allegations of issuing fake bills and claiming fraudulent ITC, resulting in a significant government loss, which was detailed in the first bail order.