Suprimkumar Jitendrabhai Patel vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court allowed the application for regular bail. It considered the applicant's role, age (around 30 years), and the fact that he had been in judicial custody since December 7, 2020. Crucially, the Court noted that prima facie, the applicant's complicity appeared to be in generating e-way bills for four firms, not sixteen, with a total tax evasion of approximately Rs. 1,60,00,000. The Court also considered that the investigation was over, as a complaint had been filed. The offence is punishable with a maximum of five years imprisonment. The Court relied on the apex court's decision in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. The bail was granted on executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with a surety, subject to several conditions, including depositing Rs. 10,00,000 within 10 days and an undertaking to deposit the remaining Rs. 30,00,000 within 12 weeks. The Court emphasized that its observations were preliminary and would not influence the trial court.

Facts

The applicant, Suprimkumar Jitendrabhai Patel, filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. He was taken into custody on December 4, 2020, and arrested on December 7, 2020, by the State Tax Officer, Flying Squad Unit-9, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. The arrest was in connection with alleged offences under Section 132(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). The prosecution alleged that the applicant generated e-way bills for 16 firms by concealing the identity of the real purchaser and seller, causing a revenue loss of approximately Rs. 9.60 crores. A complaint (Case No. 11282 of 2021) was filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on February 4, 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail in connection with the alleged offences under Section 132(1)(a) of the CGST Act and GST Act, considering the gravity of the alleged tax evasion and the stage of investigation? The petitioner argued that the offence is triable by a Magistrate, with a maximum imprisonment of five years. He highlighted that the complaint prima facie shows the applicant's involvement in only four firms, not sixteen, and that the total tax evasion related to these four firms is approximately Rs. 1,60,00,000. The petitioner also expressed willingness to deposit a portion of the amount. The respondent (State) contended that this is a significant scam involving crores of rupees, with 63 firms allegedly connected to the applicant, generating 1511 forged bills amounting to Rs. 1,44,00,000. They argued that the applicant did not cooperate with the investigation and provided unsatisfactory answers, even after data extraction from his mobile revealed names of fictitious firms.