Dheeraj Singhal S/O Shri Bhagwat Prasad vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application. The Court acknowledged the seriousness of economic offences, citing numerous judgments from the Supreme Court and its own coordinate benches that emphasize the distinct nature of economic offences and the need for a different approach in bail considerations. The Court noted that economic offenders who ruin the economy are a concern for the entire community. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's observations in cases like Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, which outlines factors to be considered while granting bail, including the nature of accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused, and larger interests of the public/State. The Court found that the investigation had collected sufficient evidence and material to reasonably believe that the petitioner had created fake firms, issued fake invoices without actual supply of goods, and passed fraudulent input tax credit, thereby causing substantial financial loss. The Court concluded that the petitioner had committed the offense with meticulous planning and deliberate design. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offense and the circumstances, granting bail to the petitioner was deemed inappropriate.

Facts

The petitioner, Dheeraj Singhal, is seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC in connection with a criminal case registered under Section 132(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (i) and Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner was arrested on February 8, 2024. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated and that the search conducted at his residence and office on February 7, 2024, for 23 hours, did not yield any incriminating material. It was contended that the complaint was filed based solely on the petitioner's statements, which were allegedly made under duress. The petitioner's counsel also raised concerns about the procedural irregularities in the search, the recording of statements, and the medical examination.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, considering the alleged lack of incriminating material during the search and the contention that statements were obtained under duress (Section 132(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (i) and Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017)? 2. Whether the procedural safeguards regarding search, seizure, and recording of statements were followed, impacting the validity of the arrest and detention (Section 439 CrPC)? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner claims to be falsely implicated and that no incriminating material was found during the 23-hour search. - Statements were allegedly recorded under duress, as evidenced by the short time between the issuance of summons and the recording of the statement. - Procedural irregularities in the panchnama, lack of independent witnesses, and failure to conduct a local medical examination were highlighted. - The petitioner argues that only two of the alleged fraudulent companies were linked to him, and these companies had ceased operations prior to the alleged fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) claims. - The petitioner contends that no fake invoices or GST returns were produced to show the passing of fraudulent ITC. - The petitioner argues that the arrest and detention are illegal as no transit remand was obtained and a local medical examination was not conducted. - The petitioner asserts that there is no need to keep him in custody as the charge sheet has been filed and there is no apprehension of him absconding or tampering with evidence. Respondent's (Union of India) Arguments: - The respondent argues that the petitioner generated fake invoices and passed fraudulent ITC amounting to a significant sum (approximately ₹190 crore). - The respondent claims that the investigation has revealed evidence beyond the petitioner's statements, as detailed in paragraph 13 of the complaint. - The respondent asserts that the petitioner's username and password were recovered, along with cheque books and other documents, indicating his involvement in the creation of fake firms. - The respondent highlights that the fraudulent ITC claims were passed by the petitioner's own two firms, amounting to ₹15 crore. - The respondent contends that the search was conducted professionally and without any misbehavior, and the medical examination at SMS Hospital revealed no injuries. - The respondent argues that no transit remand was necessary as the petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional court within 24 hours. - The respondent emphasizes that economic offences are serious and require a different approach in bail matters, citing various Supreme Court judgments.