Subhash Chander vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, including opening a fake firm and showing bogus sales to cause a huge loss to the state exchequer, it was not appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail. The Court did not explicitly address the question of whether the allegations constituted IPC offenses or solely a GST violation, but rather focused on the gravity of the alleged financial fraud. The reasoning was based on the 'serious allegations' and the 'huge loss to state exchequer' as disclosed by the investigation and the State's affidavit. The ratio decidendi is that serious allegations of financial fraud involving fake firms and significant revenue loss are grounds to deny anticipatory bail. The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Subhash Chander, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 104 dated June 18, 2020, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad. The FIR alleged the creation of a bogus firm, Yash Trading Company, which showed bogus sales and claimed input tax credit of approximately `49.00 lacs. The petitioner was implicated based on the statement of a co-accused, Manoj Kumar, who claimed the petitioner opened the firm and controlled its operations. The petitioner argued that Manoj was merely a part-time accountant for his firm, Tirupati Balaji, and he had no connection with other accused. He contended that the allegations did not prima facie constitute the IPC offenses and at most would be a violation of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The State, through an affidavit, stated that a bogus firm was opened at the petitioner's instance, showing fake sales of `9,79,92,252/- and claiming input tax credit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, concerning the creation of a bogus firm, showing bogus sales, and claiming input tax credit, prima facie constitute offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner's alleged involvement in opening and operating a bogus firm, leading to a significant loss to the state exchequer, warrants the grant of anticipatory bail? Petitioner's Contentions: - The allegations in the FIR do not disclose a prima facie case under the IPC sections against the petitioner. - The matter would at most be a case of violation of Section 132 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. - Manoj Kumar, the co-accused whose statement implicated the petitioner, was only a part-time accountant for the petitioner's firm, Tirupati Balaji. - The petitioner has no connection with other accused, Sushil and Raju. Respondent's (State of Haryana) Contentions: - A bogus firm was opened in the name of Yash Trading Company at the instance of the petitioner. - The petitioner is a partner of M/s Tirupati Balaji Oil Mill. - Fake bills showed non-existent sales of `9,79,92,252/- and input tax credit was claimed. - Details of fake invoices for purchases have been provided.