Pinakin Maheshbhai @ Mohanbhai Mistry vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that prima facie, the applicants in Criminal Misc. Applications No. 22026/2018 and 22014/2018 did not appear to have played any major role in the alleged offence. Based on the FIR itself, the prominent roles seemed to be played by original accused no.1-Nilesh Swarupchandra Mali and original accused no.5-Nirav Ratilal Thakkar. While some allegations were made against the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 22014 of 2018 (original accused no.7), it appeared they only recovered a commission amount from original accused no.5. The primary role attributed to this applicant was preparing bills, and they were allegedly lured into this activity by original accused no.1 and no.5. No other allegations were made against this applicant or original accused no.11. Considering the facts, nature of allegations, and gravity of the offence, the Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The Court also took into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab. The applications were allowed, and the applicants were ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest, subject to furnishing personal bonds and surety, and adhering to specific conditions including cooperation with the investigation, presence on a specified date, not inducing witnesses, not obstructing the investigation, furnishing address, not leaving India without permission, and depositing passports. The trial court was directed not to be influenced by the Court's prima facie observations.

Facts

Three Criminal Misc. Applications were filed before the Gujarat High Court. Criminal Misc. Application No. 22400 of 2018 was not pressed by the applicant and was disposed of. The remaining two applications, No. 22026 of 2018 and 22014 of 2018, were filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. These applications arose from FIR C.R. No. I-4 of 2017 registered with CID Crime, Ahmedabad Zone Police Station, for offences including cheating, forgery, and violations of the Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The alleged offences occurred between 2002 and May 31, 2017, with the FIR filed on September 24, 2017, indicating a delay. The applicants argued they played no significant role, no incriminating articles were recovered, and sought bail on parity with a co-accused.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants in Criminal Misc. Applications No. 22026/2018 and 22014/2018 are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR C.R. No. I-4 of 2017, considering the allegations of generating bogus bills, claiming Input Tax Credit, and causing loss to the public exchequer? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants argued that there was a delay in filing the FIR. They contended that there was no evidence to show they prepared false bills to evade tax or gain illegal benefits, and no incriminating articles were recovered from them. They further argued for bail on the ground of parity with a co-accused, Mahendra Shantilal Patel, who had been granted bail. Revenue's Arguments: The State argued that the applicants' case could not be equated with the co-accused as they played a major role in the alleged offence. The State highlighted that bogus bills worth Rs. 779.56 crores were generated, leading to a tax credit claim of Rs. 42.42 crores, which was illegally transferred. False purchase bills of Rs. 780.62 crores were generated, resulting in an Input Tax Credit claim of Rs. 49.68 crores, causing a total loss of Rs. 67.42 crores to the exchequer. The State emphasized the applicants' pivotal role in a 15-year scam and their potential to tamper with evidence or witnesses.