Kapil Dev Singhal vs. The State Of Assam
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Kapil Dev Singhal, a coal dealer registered under the GST Act, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with BI(EO) P.S. Case No. 07/2023, filed under Sections 120(B)/468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleged a criminal conspiracy to defraud the Central and State governments of revenue. The petitioner had been summoned by Sales Tax Authorities, his statement recorded, and notices under Section 91 Cr.P.C. were served. He appeared before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) on multiple dates, producing documents. An interim pre-arrest bail was granted, during which he appeared before the I.O. and cooperated with the investigation.
Held
The Court held that while the investigation was ongoing and sufficient incriminating materials had been collected against the petitioner, his cooperation with the investigation by appearing before the I.O. on multiple occasions and producing requested documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. weighed in his favor. The Court noted that the entire case was primarily based on documentary evidence. Considering these aspects, the Court found it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail. The interim pre-arrest bail granted on February 22, 2023, was made absolute, subject to the conditions that the petitioner would make himself available for interrogation every alternative seven days or as required, and would not induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the Court or police.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the privilege of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of tax evasion and defrauding the State, and the ongoing investigation. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner, a businessman with a registered GST firm, argued that he had cooperated fully with the investigation, appearing before the I.O. on several occasions and producing all requested documents. He contended that he had already recorded his statement and was ready to extend further cooperation, posing no risk of hampering the investigation. Therefore, the interim pre-arrest bail should be made absolute. Revenue's Arguments: The State respondent objected to the grant of pre-arrest bail, highlighting that the alleged offense involved tax evasion and defrauding the State. They submitted that despite some documents being produced, the petitioner failed to provide all relevant documents. Furthermore, the petitioner allegedly confessed to indulging in fake bill processing and was unable to submit documentary evidence for claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC). The State argued that custodial interrogation might be necessary as it is a serious economic offense and the investigation is ongoing.
Sections Cited
Section 438, Section 120B, Section 468, Section 471, Section 420, Section 91
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 15.03.2023
Heard Mr. B. S. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
Page No.# 2/4 This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with BI(EO) P.S. Case No. 07/2023, under Sections 120(B)/468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Case diary has been received and I have perused the same.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. B. S. Goyal, that the petitioner is a businessman and is a dealer of coal in the name of M/S KSG TRADERS, a registered firm under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, with GST registration and a GST Registration Certificate is also issued
accordingly and the F.I.R. has been lodged against him with allegation that he deliberately entered into a nexus of common criminal conspiracy with mala fide intent to defraud and deprive both the Center and the State of its legitimate revenue. In the preliminary investigation, the petitioner was summoned by the Sales Tax Authorities and his statement was recorded and he was also served with a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, he appeared before the concerned authority with all connected documents. Further, the petitioner also appeared before the I.O. on 03.03.2023, 04.03.2023, 10.03.2023 & 13.03.2023 and produced all relevant documents as was asked to produced under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail, the petitioner has already appeared before the I.O. and recorded his statement and thereby co-operated with the I.O. in the investigation of this case and he is still ready to extend his full co-operation in the further investigation of this case and there is no chance of hampering or tampering the investigation of the case by the petitioner and hence, it is prayed to make the interim order, dated
Page No.# 3/4 22.02.2023, absolute.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. P. Borthakur, raised objection and submitted that the offence alleged to have been committed by the present accused/petitioner is mainly evading taxes and to defraud the State etc. and thus, during investigation, from the report of the I.O., though some of the documents were furnished before him, the petitioner failed to produce all the relevant documents before the I.O. More so, the petitioner confessed before the I.O. regarding the commission of indulging in fake bill process and he was not in a position to submit any documentary evidence against the claim of ITC. It further reveals from the note of the I.O. that the Taxation Department has conclusive reasons to believe that the present petitioner has claimed ITC on the basis of fake invoices against inward supply without causing movements of goods. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objection in granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner submitting that this a serious kind of economic offence and the investigation is still going on and hence custodial interrogation of the present accused/petitioner may be necessary for the purpose of investigation.
After hearing the submissions of learned counsels of both sides, I have perused the Case Record as well as the Case Diary and it reveals that sufficient incriminating materials have already been collected by the I.O. against the present accused/petitioner and the investigation is still in progress. But, it cannot be denied that the accused/petitioner appeared before the I.O. on 3-4 occasions and co-operated in the investigation of this case and he also produced the documents which was asked to produce before the I.O. under Section 91
Page No.# 4/4 Cr.P.C. The entire case is mainly based on documentary evidence.
Thus, considering all these aspects of the case, I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/ petitioner and accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the present accused/petitioner vide order dated 22.02.2023 is hereby made absolute with the following terms and conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer every alternative 7 (seven) days or as and when required; and (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.
The Case Diary be sent back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.