Rajesh And Anr vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court dismissed the bail petitions of Rajesh Mittal, Manish, and Inder Partap Singh. It found their complicity evident based on the investigation, particularly concerning the substantial bank transactions in the accounts of M/s Ansh Hospitality (owned by Manish) and M/s Shree Bala Ji Wooltax (owned by Inder Partap Singh), for which no justifiable explanation was provided. The Court noted that these firms were not genuinely in business and the funds were withdrawn and returned to the industries that made the payments. The enormous scale of the scam and the colossal loss to the State Exchequer were key factors in denying bail. Regarding petitioner Satnarain, an advocate, the Court accepted his bail petition. It was noted that he appeared to have rendered professional services for firm incorporation and, at this stage, it could not be said he joined the scam or was a beneficiary beyond his professional fee. Having been incarcerated for approximately 8 months, his further detention was deemed unnecessary. The Court clarified that its observations were not on the merits of the main case.

Facts

Three petitions were filed seeking regular bail in a case registered under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B/259 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleged that petitioners Rajesh Mittal, Inder Partap Singh, and Manish created bogus firms to evade GST, depositing large sums into these firms' accounts to cause loss to the State Exchequer. During their apprehension, laptops, cheque books, fake stamps, and files of bogus firms were recovered. Investigation revealed Rajesh Mittal as the kingpin who issued bogus bills through M/s Lalit Trading Company to 18 firms incorporated with non-businessmen. These 18 firms then issued bills to 421 industries in Panipat, facilitating fake expenditure claims and GST evasion. The estimated loss to the State was approximately 80 crores. Petitioner Satnarain, an advocate, was involved in the registration of these firms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners Rajesh Mittal, Inder Partap Singh, and Manish have been falsely implicated and if there is sufficient evidence to establish Rajesh Mittal as the kingpin and their involvement in the GST evasion scam, as argued by the petitioners. 2. Whether petitioner Satnarain, an advocate, is part of the alleged scam or merely provided professional consultancy for firm incorporation, as argued by Satnarain's counsel. 3. Whether the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code amounts to double jeopardy, given that the petitioners are also being prosecuted under Section 122 of the GST Act for which they have already been granted bail, as argued by the petitioners. Arguments for the Revenue/State: The State argued that the recovery of incriminating materials, including bogus stamps and laptops with data, points to the guilt of the accused. They contended that Rajesh Mittal was the mastermind behind registering the bogus firms, using his own contact details for many. The State also argued that proceedings under Section 122 of the GST Act are separate from IPC offenses and can continue concurrently, as the former aims to recover evaded tax while the latter addresses cheating and forgery.