Soman Saini vs. State Of U.P.

Facts

The applicant, Soman Saini, filed an anticipatory bail application in a case registered under Sections 420, 424, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, and Sections 122, 132 of the UP Goods and Services Tax Act and Central Government Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, in collusion with others, caused a loss of Rs. 4,43,88,684.65 to the State Exchequer through wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The applicant claimed false implication and argued that the alleged GST offence was non-cognizable and bailable as the amount was below five crores, citing Section 133(4). He also contended that the confession of a co-accused, Vishnu Pratap, implicating him was inadmissible and that Vishnu Pratap had already been granted regular bail. The applicant had no criminal history and apprehended arrest.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The Court considered the arguments advanced by both sides, the nature of the accusations, and the antecedents of the applicant. It was held that the applicant was liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Supreme Court's judgment in Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi). The Court directed that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties. Specific conditions were imposed, including making himself available for interrogation, not inducing or threatening witnesses, not leaving India without prior court permission, not tampering with evidence, not pressurizing prosecution witnesses, appearing before the trial court on each date, and the liberty of the court to cancel bail in case of breach of conditions. Observations made were clarified to be solely for the purpose of deciding the anticipatory bail application and not to affect the trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. when the alleged offence under the GST Act is non-cognizable and bailable, but the prosecution also invokes cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC)? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 133(4) of the UP GST Act and Section 467 IPC). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the primary offence alleged under the GST Act was non-cognizable and bailable, as the amount in dispute was below five crores, as per Section 133(4) of the UP GST Act. They further contended that the confession of the main accused, Vishnu Pratap, was inadmissible in law and that Vishnu Pratap had already been granted regular bail. The applicant asserted his false implication, lack of criminal history, and cooperation with the investigation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed the application, conceding that the GST offence was non-cognizable but argued that the applicant was also wanted under Section 467 IPC, which is a cognizable offence, thereby disentitling him to anticipatory bail.