Jitender Singh vs. State Of Haryana
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (through video conferencing) CRM-M-42591-2020 Decided on : 13.01.2021 Jitender Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Navneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Goel, DAG, Haryana with DSP Vijay Singh. **** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. Instant petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.394 dated 22.07.2019 for the offences registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, 1860 at Police Station City Fatehabad, Haryana. In pursuance to order dated 05.01.2021 of this Court, reply by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, State Crime Branch, Hisar on behalf of State has been filed. A perusal of the reply so filed by the State reveals that the petitioner submitted his self attested identity proof (i.e. aadhaar card, pan card, rent agreement, photo, copy of passbook of savings bank account of State Bank of India and mobile phone number) while opening a bogus firm i.e. M/s Bajrang Agro Food, Fatehabad along with the mobile phone number of his brother, who is a practicing lawyer. Thereafter, subsequent to the registration of the aforementioned firm opened by the petitioner, a current bank account bearing No.96773070000400 was opened by the petitioner. SONIA BURA 2021.01.15 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
CRM-M-42591-2020 -2- The statement of bank account No.96773070000400 opened by the petitioner in the Syndicate Bank clearly reflects money transactions between his firm and M/s Lord Krishna Trading, M/s Love Agro Food and M/s Gaurav Enterprises which as per the Sales Tax Department involved bogus sales of Rs.24 crores. Not only this, the firm of petitioner claimed an input tax credit of Rs.1 crore 92 lakhs 19 thousand and 675 rupees by issuing bogus bills. Heard. Prima facie there are serious allegations levelled against the petitioner for which his custodial interrogation would be required. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE 13.01.2021 sonia Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA BURA 2021.01.15 14:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.