Mohd. Shahnawaz Hussain vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Held

The Court held that the applicant had procured bail by misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. It was undisputed that the applicant had a criminal history and a prior conviction for similar offences, which he failed to disclose in his bail applications. His first bail application was withdrawn after objections were filed detailing his criminal past, and the second bail application was filed shortly thereafter without disclosing this crucial information. The Court found the applicant had not approached the court with clean hands. Regarding the second issue, the Court held that the District and Sessions Judge was justified in touching upon the merits of the case while cancelling bail, especially given the serious nature of the economic offences alleged, which resulted in a revenue loss exceeding INR 20 Crores. The Court also noted the State's submission that the applicant had misused his bail by threatening witnesses and the potential for tampering with evidence. Therefore, the Court found no illegality in the order cancelling bail. The application under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed.

Facts

The applicant, Mohd. Shahnawaz Hussain, is challenging an order dated 27.05.2024 by the District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, which cancelled his bail granted on 05.03.2024. The cancellation was sought by the State Tax Department under Section 439(2) CrPC. A complaint was filed on 18.12.2023 by the Deputy Commissioner, Special Investigation Branch (GST-State), alleging offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1) of the Uttarakhand GST Act/CGST Act, 2017. The allegations involve the operation of numerous shell firms to issue fake invoices for 'wood swan'/'timber' without actual supply, causing revenue loss to the state and central governments. The applicant was arrested on 22.10.2023. He had previously filed a bail application which was withdrawn, and a second bail application was subsequently filed without disclosing his criminal history and a prior conviction for similar offences.

Key Issues

1. Whether the bail granted to the applicant was procured by misrepresentation and suppression of material facts, in contravention of Section 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1) of the Uttarakhand GST Act/CGST Act, 2017. 2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in cancelling the applicant's bail by considering the merits of the case. Petitioner's arguments: The applicant contended that the past conduct and conviction were already considered by the court while granting bail, and therefore, the prosecution could not use this as a ground for cancellation. The applicant also argued that the cancellation of bail by touching upon the merits of the case was barred by Section 362 of the CrPC. Revenue's arguments: The State argued that the applicant deliberately suppressed his criminal history and prior conviction in his bail applications, thereby procuring bail through misrepresentation. The State also submitted that the applicant had misused his bail by threatening witnesses and that there was a risk of him tampering with evidence. The State emphasized the serious nature of economic offences and the significant revenue loss caused.