Mansih Kumar Pandey vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, finding that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The reasoning was primarily based on the applicant's categorical assertion that he never derived any input tax credit benefit for the financial years in question through the firm M/s Sanjeevani Enterprises. The Court acknowledged that the allegations of a fake firm and counterfeit bills, and the derivation of ITC benefit, are matters that need to be adjudicated during the trial. However, at the prima facie stage of considering bail, the applicant's contention that no ITC benefit was received, coupled with the absence of a detailed counter-affidavit from the State, weighed in favor of granting bail. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were tentative and solely for the purpose of considering the bail application, and would not prejudice the independent decision of the trial. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and sureties.

Facts

The applicant, Manish Kumar Pandey, was booked under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC. The FIR alleged his involvement in a fraudulent firm, M/s Sanjeevani Enterprises, registered with the Tax Department. The firm was purportedly used to derive Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits for Financial Years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, using counterfeit bills. The prosecution claimed no such firm was registered and the bills were fake. The applicant's bail application was rejected by the trial court, which noted the firm was registered in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, and operated by the applicant. The applicant argued that the taxing laws are self-contained and provide their own penal provisions for fraudulent ITC claims.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail, considering the allegations of fraudulent ITC claims through a fake firm and the provisions of taxing laws, as per Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the taxing laws are self-contained and include their own penal provisions for fraudulent ITC claims. He emphasized that the applicant denies deriving any ITC benefit for the specified financial years in the name of M/s Sanjeevani Enterprises. The counsel also noted the absence of a counter-affidavit from the State despite opportunities, with the Government Advocate only reading instructions that mirrored the trial court's reasoning. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State, through the Deputy Advocate General, presented instructions that largely supported the trial court's reasoning for rejecting the bail application. The instructions indicated that the firm, M/s Sanjeevani Enterprises, was found to be registered at a specific address in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, and was allegedly operated by the applicant.