Nitin Bansal vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application of Nitin Bansal. The Court considered the submissions of both parties, the nature of the offence, the evidence, and the complicity of the accused. While acknowledging the State's argument that innocence cannot be determined at the pre-trial stage and the risk of misuse of bail, the Court found that the applicant had made out a fit case for bail. The reasoning implicitly weighed the applicant's arguments regarding his lack of direct involvement, the reliance on a potentially inadmissible confession, the absence of independent witnesses, and his clean criminal record and period of detention against the prosecution's general concerns. The operative directions were to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to several conditions including not tampering with evidence, not harassing the victim, abiding by court orders, attending court dates, not delaying the trial, not indulging in unlawful activities, and not misusing bail. The Court clarified that the order was limited to the bail application and did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the trial court free to reach independent conclusions.

Facts

The applicant, Nitin Bansal, sought bail in a case involving alleged Goods and Services Tax (GST) evasion. The FIR was lodged on 22.11.2018 against Narendra Kumar, proprietor of 'N.K. Industries', for allegedly operating a firm on forged documents. An inspection revealed no business activity or stock at the firm's address, despite outward and inward supplies being shown. Narendra Kumar had not filed '3-B' returns for 2013-2019, though e-way bills were generated. Similar FIRs were lodged against Guddu Chaudhary, Shabana Khatoon, and Suraj Kumar. Nitin Bansal was not named in the initial FIR. He was apprehended on 20.06.2019 along with three others, based on an informer's tip. Rajeev Kumar Kuchhal, one of those apprehended, allegedly confessed to involvement in the firm's transactions, implicating Nitin Bansal. From Nitin Bansal's possession, a mobile phone and a forged PAN card of Gaurav Yadav with Nitin Bansal's photo were recovered. He allegedly used this to open a bank account for forged firms and receive commission. The applicant claims false implication, lack of independent witnesses for recovery, and that the charge sheet was filed without tracing the main culprit. He has no criminal antecedent and has been in detention since 20.06.2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Nitin Bansal, is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1209 of 2018, under Sections 420, 466, 468, 120-B IPC and 132 C.G.S.T. Act, considering the evidence presented at the pre-trial stage? Contentions of the Petitioner (Nitin Bansal): - The applicant is not named in the FIR and has no direct connection with the primary accused, Narendra Kumar, or his firm. - His implication is based on the confessional statement of a co-accused, Rajeev Kumar Kuchhal, which is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. - There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery from his possession. - The prosecution has failed to trace the main culprit or identify who is conducting the fake business. - The applicant has no criminal antecedent, has been in detention since 20.06.2019, and is not a flight risk or a threat to tamper with evidence. - He has cooperated with the investigation and will cooperate in the trial. Contentions of the Opposite Party (State of U.P.): - The innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudicated at the pre-trial stage. - The applicant is likely to misuse the liberty of bail if released.