Vinod Jain vs. State Of U.P.
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2038 of 2023 Applicant :- Vinod Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Nimesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. By means of the the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.62 of 2021 at Police Station-Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad under Sections 420, 424, 467, 468, 120B, 471 I.P.C. and Sections 122, 132 CGST/UP GST Act, 2017. The applicant is in jail since 01.10.2022. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 19.10.2022. The following arguments made by Shri Vinod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel assisted by Shri Nimesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel and Shri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Neeraj Kumar Singh, learned brief holder for the State and Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned AGA for the State from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
The applicant did not fraudulently avail input tax credit.
Adjudication proceedings are on foot regarding
determination of the tax liability of the applicant.
The applicant is contesting the case of the revenue tooth and nail.
The case of the revenue stated in the F.I.R. discloses that tax effect of the evaded tax created a compoundable offence. However, as an afterthought, show cause notice issued by the revenue reflects an exaggerated amount to implicate the applicant in this case and burnish the credentials of the revenue investigations.
Even if the show cause notice is taken on its face value, maximum punishment is for a period of three years.
The applicant hopes to succeed in the adjudication before the tax authorities.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial proceedings before the revenue authorities.
Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.
The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.
The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his
influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Vinod Jain be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The revenue can secure its interests in the proceedings taken out under the GST Act for determining the extent of the alleged evasion. Order Date :- 16.2.2023 Dhananjai DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.