Aslam Bilalbhai Kalliwala vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to regular bail. The Court considered the applicant's age (58 years), the fact that the investigation pertains to paper transactions involving fake invoices for input tax credit, and the indication that the applicant's son, Hasan, is responsible for the fake invoices. The Court also noted that the Additional Public Prosecutor, under instructions from the Investigating Officer, was unable to present any special circumstances against the applicant. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation. Prima facie, the Court was of the opinion that it was a fit case to exercise discretion and enlarge the applicant on bail. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of like amount, subject to several conditions, including not misusing liberty, not obstructing investigation, surrendering his passport, not leaving Gujarat without permission, marking presence at the police station monthly, and not changing residence without permission. The trial court was cautioned not to be influenced by the preliminary observations made by the High Court.

Facts

The applicant, Aslam Bilalbhaj Kalliwala, filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail. The case was registered with the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Enforcement, Division-8, Surat, for offences punishable under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, exercising powers under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act. The complaint was registered on September 14, 2021, for alleged offences in 2020-2021. The applicant had been in custody since September 14, 2021, and the investigation was apparently concluded. The applicant is 58 years old and runs Blue Star Trading Company. The allegations pertain to the creation of fake firms with GST numbers to claim input tax credit by creating fake bills and documents without actual transactions. The applicant's son, Hasan, is alleged to be responsible for the fake invoices.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC, considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences under Section 132 of the CGST and GGST Acts, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant is 58 years old and legitimately conducting business. - The investigation pertains to paper transactions involving fake firms and invoices to claim input tax credit. - The applicant's son, Hasan, is actually responsible for the administration of the business and the creation of fake invoices. - The investigating officer was unable to present any special circumstances against the applicant. - Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation. Revenue's Arguments: - The State opposed the grant of bail due to the nature and gravity of the offence. - The State drew attention to a telephonic conversation with a co-accused, Ibrahim, to indicate the applicant's involvement. However, the nature of the communication suggested the applicant informed Ibrahim that his business did not involve issuing bills, but his company would supply if the transaction was without a bill.