Manoj Kumar Pareek vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, Manoj Kumar Pareek. The decision was based on several factors presented by the petitioner. Firstly, the Court considered the petitioner's claim that the ingredients of forgery were not present in the case. Secondly, the petitioner's submission that the inspection of his business premises occurred after the cancellation of his license was noted. Most significantly, the Court took into account the petitioner's assertion that the claimed loss of Input Tax Credit had already been reversed, thereby eliminating any actual loss to the department. The completion of the investigation and the documentary nature of the evidence, coupled with the petitioner's undertaking to participate in the trial, also weighed in favor of granting bail. The Court directed the petitioner to be released on furnishing bail bonds and sureties, subject to conditions including submitting his Aadhaar card photocopy and keeping his mobile number active and unchanged without prior court permission.

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar Pareek, is seeking regular bail in connection with Jugsalai P.S. Case No.0085 of 2018. He has been in custody since June 11, 2022. The petitioner is accused of obtaining Input Tax Credit (ITC) by showing false transactions, allegedly causing a huge loss to the department. The petitioner claims innocence, stating that the ingredients of forgery are not present. He also contends that the business premises, though inspected on May 24, 2018, were not found functional, but the license in question had already been cancelled effective March 21, 2018. Furthermore, the claimed loss of ITC has been reversed, meaning there is no actual loss to the department. The investigation is complete, and the evidence is documentary. The petitioner has undertaken to participate in the trial.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail given the allegations of obtaining Input Tax Credit through false transactions and causing loss to the department? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argues that the ingredients of forgery are not met. He also contends that the inspection of his business premises occurred after his license was cancelled, rendering the finding of non-functionality irrelevant. Crucially, he asserts that the alleged loss of Input Tax Credit has been reversed, negating any actual financial loss to the department. The investigation is complete, and the evidence is documentary, and he has undertaken to participate in the trial. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposes the bail prayer, submitting that during the investigation, sufficient material was found to suggest that the petitioner engaged in false transactions to obtain Input Tax Credit, resulting in a significant loss to the department.