Ashok Kumar vs. State Of Haryana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ashok Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 61 dated 15.02.2023, registered at Police Station Sadar Sonipat, District Sonipat, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint that the complainant's PAN card was used to open a fake firm, SBJ Enterprises, which conducted transactions amounting to ₹7 crores in 2020-21 without the complainant's knowledge. The petitioner was not initially named in the FIR. The investigation revealed that the petitioner allegedly sold goods from the fake firm SBJ Enterprises to other firms, collected GST from them, but did not deposit it with the government. A report from the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Delhi, indicated fake billing of approximately ₹27 crores by SBJ Enterprises, causing a loss of ₹4.8 crores to the state exchequer. The petitioner's name emerged during the investigation as an active participant in the scam.
Held
The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court found that the investigation revealed the petitioner actively participated in the scam by selling goods from the fake firm SBJ Enterprises, collecting GST from buyers, and failing to deposit it with the government. The Court noted that the firm SBJ Enterprises engaged in fake billing amounting to approximately ₹27 crores, causing a loss of ₹4.8 crores to the state exchequer. The petitioner's transactions with a co-accused related to this fake firm were also observed. Considering the petitioner's active involvement in the scam and the necessity of custodial interrogation to unearth the modus operandi, the Court held that he was not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 61 dated 15.02.2023, registered at Police Station Sadar Sonipat, District Sonipat, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC? The petitioner argued that he is innocent, falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and no incriminating material has been collected against him. He also stated his readiness to join the investigation. The respondent (State of Haryana) argued that there is specific evidence against the petitioner, alleging he received fake bills for the fake firm SBJ Enterprises from a co-accused, delivered them to other firms, collected GST amounts, and failed to deposit them, causing a loss to the public exchequer. The State contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to unearth the modus operandi.
Sections Cited
Section 438 Cr.P.C., Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CRM-M No.6900-2024 1 2024:PHHC:059610
209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.6900-2024 Date of Decision:-30.04.2024 ASHOK KUMAR
... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA
... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Surender Singh, AAG, Haryana.
***** SANJIV BERRY, J (ORAL) By way of the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C the petitioner is praying for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in FIR detailed as under (Annexure P-1):- FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station 61 15.02.2023 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC (120-B IPC added later on) Sadar Sonipat, District Sonipat he investigation and hence the present FIR.
Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was received at CM window, stating that PAN card of the complainant Virender was used for opening a fake firm in the name of SBJ Enterprises in which transactions ₹ amounting to 7crores were done in the year 2020-21, whereas the complainant had no knowledge of the same and he came to know only when Gyan Chand 2024.05.15 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M No.6900-2024 2 2024:PHHC:059610
he received notice from Income Tax Department, after investigation of the complaint, FIR was lodged.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR nor any incriminating material has been collected by the investigating agency against the petitioner and he is ready to join the investigation.
Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the bail petition by arguing that there are specific evidence against the petitioner to have committed the offence in question. He submits that the petitioner used to receive fake bills from co-accused Sunny for fake firm SBJ Enterprises and used to deliver fake bills to some other firms. The amount of Goods and Service Tax (hereinafter referred to in short GST) bills so generated used to be collected by the petitioner but did not deposit the same in the account of GST, thereby causing loss to the public exchequer to the tune of crores of rupees. He submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to unearth the modus operandi. Hence he prays for dismissal of the petition.
After hearing the respective submissions and perusing the record, it transpires on the basis of the complaint thorough inquiry into the matter was conducted by the police culminated into the registration of the instant FIR. During the course of investigation the record of the firm SBJ Enterprises was taken into possession and probed and it was found that goods were shown to have been sold by the said fake firm to various other firms and upon further verification from the concerned firms it transpires Gyan Chand 2024.05.15 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M No.6900-2024 3 2024:PHHC:059610
that the petitioner used to sell goods to other firms from the said fake firm SBJ Enterprises. It further transpires that all these firms had paid GST to the petitioner, however this amount of tax so received by the petitioner was never deposited in the account of GST. There had been transactions in the account of the petitioner with the account of co-accused Sunny pertaining to said fake firm and as per the report Annexure R-1 given by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Delhi, the said firm was used to have made fake ₹ billing amounting to 27 crores approximately and thereby causing loss to ₹ the State exchequer to the tune of 4.8 crores. The name of the petitioner figured during the investigation to have actively participated in the scam and creating fake bills from fictitious firm, collecting GST but not depositing the same in the Government account. Therefore, considering all these facts and circumstances, it is observed that the petitioner having actively participated in the entire scam is not entitled to concession of anticipatory bail and his custodial interrogation is required to unearth the modus operandi, resultantly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.s of the case and is only me (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 30.04.2024 Gyan i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No Gyan Chand 2024.05.15 13:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.