Neerav Ratilal Rupareliya vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the applicant's claim of a "change of circumstance" based on the grant of regular bail to a co-accused was not a valid ground for filing a successive anticipatory bail application. The Court reasoned that the considerations for granting anticipatory bail and regular bail are distinct. The order granting regular bail to a co-accused, particularly when the applicant's role in the alleged offence was different and prima facie involvement could not be ruled out, did not entitle the applicant to anticipatory bail. The Court emphasized that a "change of circumstance" must relate to the merits of the case and provide a new perspective on the accused's prima facie involvement. The applicant had also failed to bring this alleged change to the Court's notice in previous subsequent applications. The Court found the present application to be an abuse of the legal process, especially considering the serious economic offence involving substantial public money. Therefore, the Court dismissed the application.

Facts

The applicant, Neerav Ratilal Rupareliya, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a complaint registered on September 24, 2017, alleging issuance of bogus purchase/sale invoices for a period between 2002 and May 2017. The complaint, filed by the Sales Tax Officer, Ahmedabad, alleged that 15 accused persons, including the applicant, issued bogus invoices for 26 business entities, causing a loss of over Rs. 67.42 crores to the public exchequer through sales tax evasion and fraudulent input tax credit claims. This was the applicant's sixth application for anticipatory bail concerning the same FIR, and the third before this High Court. Previous applications were rejected or withdrawn. The current application was based on a claimed change of circumstance, namely, the grant of regular bail to a co-accused.

Key Issues

1. Whether the relief of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be sought on multiple occasions in connection with the same First Information Report (FIR)? (Question of law) 2. Whether the grant of regular bail to a co-accused on certain terms and conditions constitutes a sufficient change of circumstance or new consideration to warrant the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant in a successive application? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the grant of regular bail to the main co-accused in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14993 of 2018, by this Court on October 16, 2018, with specific conditions and observations, constituted a change of circumstance. The applicant contended that their role was not graver than that of the main accused and therefore, similar relief should be granted. Reliance was placed on specific conditions and observations from the co-accused's bail order. Revenue's Arguments: The State of Gujarat, as the respondent, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning implicitly addresses the State's position by examining the applicant's submissions.