Satya Prakash Singh vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, particularly the argument that it was not the petitioner's duty to verify the documents furnished by his client. The Court also noted the petitioner's admission of facilitating the GST registration of P.K. Traders and his contention that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) issue was against the co-accused. The Court found the case to be a fit one for granting anticipatory bail. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon his arrest or surrender within six weeks, subject to depositing cash security of Rs. 50,000/-, furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of like amount, cooperating with the investigation, appearing before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed, and furnishing his mobile number and Aadhar Card copy with an undertaking not to change his mobile number during the pendency of the case, all in accordance with Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.

Facts

The petitioner, Satya Prakash Singh, an advocate and tax practitioner, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Telco P.S. Case No.104 of 2018. The case was registered under sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (JGST) Act. The allegations state that the petitioner, in connivance with co-accused, facilitated the registration of a proprietary firm, P.K. Traders, using fake and vague documents to evade government tax. The petitioner admits to facilitating the GST registration of P.K. Traders but argues it was not his duty to verify the documents provided by his client. He also contends that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) issue pertains to the co-accused, not him, and that he has no chance of absconding due to his profession.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of tax evasion and facilitation of fraudulent registration under the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that as a tax practitioner, he was not responsible for verifying the authenticity of documents provided by his clients. He asserted that the allegations of tax evasion and the issue of Input Tax Credit (ITC) were against the co-accused and not directly attributable to him. He emphasized his professional standing as an advocate and established tax practitioner, suggesting no likelihood of absconding. He also undertook to cooperate with the investigation and furnish security. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.