Juber vs. State Of U.P Through Its Principal Secretary (Home)

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Juber. The Court noted that no case of tax evasion was found against the applicant, and consequently, Sections 122/132 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were dropped during the investigation. The applicant is now being tried only for offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/34, and 120B of the IPC, based on the allegation that he misused the papers of one Ranjit Kumar. The Court observed that genuine documents of Ranjit were used to open the firm, which was later closed, making it unlikely for the evidence to be misused or tampered with. Furthermore, there were contradictions between the FIR and Ranjit Kumar's statement. The case is triable by a Magistrate, and the applicant undertook to cooperate with the trial and not tamper with evidence. The Court also took into consideration that co-accused individuals had been granted bail by a coordinate bench. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found the applicant liable to be released on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond and sureties, and adhering to specific conditions to ensure his presence and cooperation during the trial.

Facts

The applicant, Juber, is seeking bail in a case involving allegations of tax evasion and forgery. The FIR, filed by a Commercial Tax Officer, alleged that the applicant, using documents of one Ranjeet, registered a company named M/s Maheshrya Suppliers and Processors with the intent to evade tax. Initially, a final report was submitted, and subsequently, during reinvestigation, charges under the GST Act were dropped as no tax evasion was found. The applicant's counsel argued that no offense under Sections 420, 467, 468, or 471 of the IPC is made out. The applicant has been in jail since May 8, 2023, and has a criminal history of three cases, with bail granted in two. The State opposed bail, stating the applicant opened a company using a false name to evade tax, and the initial final report was rejected, leading to further investigation and arrest. The applicant's father is a cancer patient, and the case is triable by a Magistrate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the dropping of GST Act charges and the nature of the remaining IPC charges. Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant is innocent and falsely implicated. - No case of tax evasion was found, and Sections 122/132 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were dropped. - No offense under Section 420 IPC is made out as there was no cheating or dishonest inducement. - No forgery of documents is established, thus no case under Sections 467, 471 IPC. - The applicant has been in jail since May 8, 2023, and has a criminal history of three cases, with bail granted in two. - Charge-sheet has been filed, and further detention would serve no purpose. - The applicant's father is a cancer patient. - Co-accused have been granted bail. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The applicant opened a company using a false name (Ranjeet) to evade huge taxes. - The initial final report was rejected, and the applicant was arrested during further investigation. - The applicant has a criminal history of similar offenses, and if released, he may misuse liberty and not cooperate with the trial.