Anush Kumar Gangwani vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The Court took into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the evidence, and the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court was inclined to grant bail. The applicant was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one local surety. Conditions for bail included regular appearance before the trial court, not tampering with prosecution witnesses, and the State's liberty to apply for cancellation if the applicant is involved in similar offenses in the future. No specific issue was left undecided, and the Court's decision was based on the completion of custodial interrogation and the pending issuance of a show cause notice.

Facts

The applicant, Anush Kumar Gangwani, is seeking regular bail in connection with a GST crime registered for offenses under Section 69(1) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act. The respondent received intelligence about M/s Radhe Construction passing unauthorized Input Tax Credit (ITC). Investigations revealed fake firms, M/s Disha Traders and M/s Mukesh Traders, also involved in fraudulent ITC. Manoj Kumar Valecha stated in his statement that he passed fraudulent ITC to M/s Ganpati Transport & Trading. The applicant was found to be operating and managing four firms, including M/s Ganpati Transport & Trading, from a single premises. The applicant was arrested on September 30, 2023. His previous bail application was dismissed due to ongoing investigation and potential tampering with evidence. The applicant claims the investigation is now complete and a show cause notice has been issued. The respondent confirms further investigation is complete, with additional fake invoices of approximately ₹2 crores recovered, but a show cause notice is yet to be issued.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the stage of investigation and the nature of the alleged offenses under the CGST Act. Petitioner's Contention: The applicant's counsel argued that the investigation is complete, and a show cause notice has been issued to the applicant under the GST Act, 2017. This suggests that the evidentiary stage requiring custodial interrogation is over. Respondent's Contention: The respondent's counsel acknowledged that further investigation is complete and no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. However, they stated that a show cause notice has not yet been issued to the applicant, and a letter has been written to higher officials for its issuance. They did not explicitly argue against bail on merits but highlighted the pending issuance of the show cause notice.