Abhishek Singhal S/O Shri Ashok Kumar Singhal vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application. The primary reasons for dismissal were threefold: firstly, the petitioner failed to appear before the Department despite receiving notices. Secondly, after a complaint was filed before the trial court, the petitioner remained absconded for approximately one year. Thirdly, the Court considered the petitioner, a chartered accountant, to be the mastermind behind the crime, responsible for creating 38 fake firms and wrongfully availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 6,36,32,492/-. The Court found that these factors collectively indicated that no case was made out for releasing the petitioner on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The ratio decidendi is that individuals identified as masterminds of significant financial fraud involving fake entities and substantial wrongful ITC claims, who also abscond from authorities, are unlikely to be granted bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Abhishek Singhal, a chartered accountant, is seeking bail in a case registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He was arrested in connection with case No. IV(06)121/AE/ALWAR/2020 by the GST Commissionerate Alwar. The petitioner claims to have been falsely implicated and argues that he is not liable for the offenses committed by co-accused. He has been in custody since February 19, 2021, and the maximum sentence for the alleged offenses is five years. He also points out that co-accused have been released on bail. The respondent-department opposes the bail application, highlighting that the petitioner is considered the main accused, absconded for approximately one year, and is alleged to have wrongfully availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 6,36,32,492/- by creating 38 fake firms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with the alleged offenses under Section 132(1)(b)/(c)/(f), 4R/20, 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that he has been falsely implicated and is not responsible for the actions of co-accused. He highlights his profession as a chartered accountant and the fact that the maximum sentence is five years. He also submits that he has been in custody since February 19, 2021, and the trial is likely to take a long time. Furthermore, he states that co-accused have already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent-department opposes the bail application. They rely on arguments made in a previous bail application of a co-accused, Hemant Kumar Singhal, which identified Abhishek Singhal as the main accused who was absconding and instrumental in getting GST registration for 38 fake firms. The allegations against the petitioner include wrongfully availing or passing ITC to the tune of Rs. 6,36,32,492/- by creating 38 fake firms. The respondent also notes that the petitioner absconded for about one year.