Sachin Kumar vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court found that the petitioner's claim of merely providing professional services as a taxation lawyer was prima facie unfounded, given the allegations in the State's reply. The Court noted that the petitioner allegedly managed all IDs and documents for registration, worked as an accountant for the concern, and was a law graduate. The proprietor of M/s Ambika Traders was alleged to be a non-existent person. The Court reasoned that economic offences, involving bogus ITC and affecting the State exchequer, require a serious approach. Granting anticipatory bail would defeat the deeper probe required to unearth the scam, and the petitioner's custody was deemed necessary to disclose the persons involved and the modus operandi. The Court distinguished the present case from FIR No. 683, where the petitioner's alleged role was solely that of a tax lawyer providing professional services for filing returns, whereas in the current FIR, the factual position indicated a more direct involvement. The Court dismissed the petition, stating that nothing said would be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Sachin Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 679 dated July 13, 2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat. The FIR stemmed from a complaint by an Excise and Taxation Officer alleging the creation of fake firms, including M/s Ambika Traders, to claim bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC) by utilizing cancelled 'C' forms. M/s Ambika Traders, a proprietorship of Rahul, was registered with a liability date of April 1, 2017. The proprietor and the firm could not be traced. Despite no returns filed for 2017-2018, 'C' forms worth Rs. 54.74 crores were used in the first quarter. The petitioner claimed to be a taxation lawyer who assisted Rahul in registering the concern. The State contended that the shop address used for registration belonged to Rajiv Garg, who stated Rahul never resided or conducted business there. A rent agreement was found forged. The petitioner allegedly used his brother's mobile number and forged surety documents. The petitioner was also involved in FIR No. 683 dated July 13, 2019, for which he had obtained ad interim anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 679 dated July 13, 2019, considering the allegations of economic offences involving bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner argued that he acted solely as a taxation lawyer providing professional services for the registration of the concern, M/s Ambika Traders. He contended that the Excise and Taxation Inspector conducts site visits before registration and that he had previously been granted anticipatory bail in a similar FIR (FIR No. 683 dated July 13, 2019) where his role was limited to providing professional services as a tax lawyer. He relied on the principle that professional services do not equate to direct involvement in the alleged scam. The State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, arguing that the petitioner's role extended beyond that of a mere lawyer. They presented evidence suggesting the petitioner managed all IDs and documents for registration, worked as an accountant for the concern, and was a law graduate. The State highlighted that the proprietor of M/s Ambika Traders was a non-existent person and that the rent agreement was forged. They emphasized the gravity of economic offences, citing Supreme Court judgments, and argued that the petitioner's custody was necessary to unearth the scam and identify other involved individuals. The State also pointed out that the petitioner had not joined the investigation in FIR No. 683 despite ad interim anticipatory bail and was involved in four other similar FIRs.