Anush Kumar Gangwani vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail. While acknowledging that the complaint application had been filed, the Court noted that the investigation was still ongoing and the alleged GST fraud had pan-India ramifications and involved a significant loss to the government exchequer. The Court emphasized that economic offenses with deep-rooted conspiracies and huge losses of public funds require careful consideration. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Court reiterated that when granting bail, it must consider the nature of accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused, possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the larger interests of the public/State. The Court also referred to Sandeep Goel vs. Union of India, where the Supreme Court refused bail despite the applicant having undergone significant imprisonment, directing the State to complete the investigation expeditiously. Given the applicant's arrest date (September 30, 2023) and the ongoing investigation, the Court found it was not a fit case for bail. The application was rejected, with a direction for the respondent to complete the investigation expeditiously.

Facts

The applicant, Anush Kumar Gangwani, sought bail in connection with a GST fraud case. He was arrested on September 30, 2023, for allegedly managing and operating four forged firms: M/s Naresh Traders, M/s Shri Balaji Enterprises, M/s Gurunanak Sales, and M/s Ganpati Transport & Trading. These firms are accused of fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual supply of goods and issuing bogus invoices, causing a loss of ₹5,53,27,429/- to the government exchequer. The investigation stemmed from intelligence reports about M/s Radhe Construction passing on unauthorized ITC. The applicant's arrest followed the recording of a statement by Manoj Kumar Valecha, who implicated M/s Ganpati Transport & Trading in availing fraudulent ITC. A complaint application has been filed after obtaining sanction under Section 132(6) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of CrPC, considering the complaint application has been filed and further interrogation is not necessary? (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: Argued that since the investigation is complete and a complaint application has been filed after obtaining sanction, no further interrogation is required, and therefore, the applicant should be enlarged on bail. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India. Respondent/Non-applicant: Contended that although a complaint has been filed, the investigation is still ongoing at a pan-India level. They argued that the applicant is not entitled to bail merely because a complaint is filed, as his release could affect the ongoing investigation, lead to the destruction of evidence, and influence witnesses. Numerous High Court and Supreme Court decisions were cited in support of their argument, including Paritosh Kumar Singh vs. Senior Intell. Officer, Pankaj Agrawal vs. Union of India, and Sandeep Goyal vs. Union of India.