Mohammed Yunus @ Mohameed Yunus Khan@Mohemmedyunus@Yunuskhan S/O Late Shri Najir Ahmed vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court considered the contentions put forth by both sides. While the petitioner argued for bail based on the period of custody, the maximum sentence, and the stage of proceedings, the respondent presented a strong counter-argument regarding the alleged creation of multiple firms to facilitate a substantial amount of fraudulent input tax credit. The Court, after considering the arguments, was not inclined to entertain the third bail application. The reasoning appears to be based on the seriousness of the allegations concerning the large-scale manipulation of input tax credit, as presented by the Union of India. The Court found sufficient grounds to deny bail at this stage. No specific provision of the GST Act was directly interpreted for the bail decision, but the alleged offense falls under Section 132(1) of the GST Act.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammed Yunus, filed a third bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The FIR was registered under Section 132(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had been in custody for one year. The petitioner's counsel argued that the maximum sentence for the offense is five years, bail had been granted in similar cases, and the matter was at the pre-charge evidence stage. The respondent, Union of India, through the Senior Intelligence Officer, opposed the bail application, contending that the petitioner had created 26 firms to facilitate input tax credit (ITC) availment and utilization amounting to Rs. 108.36 crores.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. considering the period of custody, the maximum sentence prescribed, and the stage of the proceedings, particularly in light of Section 132(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the sentence for the offense is five years, and he has already been in custody for one year. It was also contended that bail has been granted in similar cases and that the matter is still at the pre-charge evidence stage. The petitioner relied on the principle of parity with other bail orders. Respondent's Contentions: The Union of India opposed the bail application, highlighting the gravity of the alleged offense. It was contended that the petitioner had created 26 firms to facilitate the availment and utilization of input tax credit amounting to Rs. 108.36 crores.