Mukesh Amarsinh Rajput vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court observed that, prima facie, the applicant did not appear to have played a major role in the alleged offense. Based on the FIR itself, prominent roles seemed to have been played by original accused no.1, Nilesh Swarupchandra Mali, and original accused no.5, Nirav Ratilal Thakkar. Although some allegations were made against the applicant, he was named only in a supplementary charge-sheet and not in the FIR. Considering the facts, the nature of allegations, and the gravity of the offense, the Court found it inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The Court also took into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia. 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 cooperation with the investigation, remaining present at the police station on a specified date, not inducing witnesses, not obstructing the investigation, furnishing his address, and not leaving India without permission.

Facts

The applicant, Mukesh Amarsinh Rajput, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR C.R. No.I-4 of 2017 registered with CID Crime, Ahmedabad Zone Police Station. The FIR alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Value Added Tax Act, 2003, for acts committed between 2002 and May 31, 2017. The applicant argued that there was a delay in filing the FIR, no evidence of preparing false bills, and no recovery from him. He also sought bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused. The State contended that the applicant played a pivotal role in a large scam involving bogus bills totaling Rs.779.56 crores, leading to a tax credit claim of Rs.42.42 crores and a loss of Rs.67.42 crores to the public exchequer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of a large-scale financial scam involving bogus bills and tax evasion, and the applicant's alleged role therein? The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the FIR, the absence of direct evidence linking him to the preparation of false bills, and the lack of recovery of incriminating articles warranted anticipatory bail. He further relied on the principle of parity, citing the bail granted to a co-accused. The respondent State argued that the applicant could not be equated with the co-accused, highlighting the significant amount of bogus bills generated (Rs.779.56 crores) and the substantial tax credit claimed (Rs.42.42 crores), which resulted in a loss to the public exchequer. The State emphasized the applicant's pivotal role in a 15-year scam and the potential for him to tamper with evidence or witnesses.