Lallan Sah S/O Shri Akshayvar Sah vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, releasing the petitioner on bail. The Court acknowledged the arguments presented by both sides, particularly noting the petitioner's contention that his case was not distinguishable from that of co-accused Anil Kumar Gupta, who had already been granted bail. The Court also considered the petitioner's deposit of Rs. 63.00 Lakhs. However, the Court explicitly stated that the bail was granted "without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case." The operative direction was for the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each, subject to the trial court's satisfaction, and to appear on subsequent dates of hearing. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Lallan Sah, is a partner in Salasar E-Waste LLP, registered under GST and engaged in manufacturing Lead Ingots. A search was conducted at the firm's premises on November 20, 2020. Allegations concern wrongful claims of Input Tax Credit (ITC), with figures of Rs. 5.27 Crores and Rs. 5.87 Crores mentioned. The petitioner was arrested in Delhi in the same matter and released on bail on January 11, 2021. Subsequently, he was arrested again in Alwar on March 5, 2021. His bail applications were dismissed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the Sessions Court. The petitioner had deposited approximately Rs. 63.00 Lakhs as pre-deposit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC, considering his arrest in connection with alleged wrongful claims of Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 5.27 Crores? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that the alleged offence is triable by a First Class Magistrate and is bailable if the ITC involved is below Rs. 5.00 Crores. He argues that the maximum sentence is 5 years, reducible to 6 months. He highlights that a co-accused, Anil Kumar Gupta, with whom his case is not distinguishable, has been granted bail. He also states that no show cause notice was issued and that he has cooperated with the investigation. He claims innocence and that the trial will take a long time. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argue that when the amount involved exceeds Rs. 5.00 Crores, the offence is non-compoundable. They assert that the petitioner is the "mastermind" and has 70% shares in the firm, actively managing its affairs, distinguishing his case from Anil Kumar Gupta, who was allegedly not involved in management. They point to Section 74 of the Act of 2017 regarding ITC recovery and state that the investigation is ongoing.