Abhishek Modgil vs. State Of Ut Chandigarh

Facts

The petitioner, Abhishek Modgil, proprietor of M/s Mahadev Metals, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 390 dated 16.12.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleged that the petitioner obtained GST registration and conducted taxable supplies/transactions amounting to Rs. 20,46,52,098/-, evading tax to the tune of Rs. 4,02,00,136/- by generating bogus invoices. The petitioner claimed he was a 24-year-old matriculate, incapable of such high-magnitude transactions, and that his identity documents were misused to create a dummy firm. He stated he was ready to join the investigation and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the case relied on documentary evidence already with the police. The State/UT counsel opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner committed criminal offenses by forging receipts and that custodial interrogation was necessary.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court acknowledged the allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents to avoid tax liability. However, it noted that all the relevant documents were already in the possession of the police. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's actual role in the alleged transactions, or whether he was indeed made a scapegoat as claimed, could be ascertained once he joined the investigation and his involvement was examined against the seized documentary evidence. The Court directed the petitioner to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh, and to comply with the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. He was ordered to join the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer when called upon, cooperating fully. Failure to comply would allow the State/UT to seek cancellation of the granted protection.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 390 dated 16.12.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Central, Sector 17, Chandigarh? The petitioner argued that he is a young, uneducated individual who has been made a scapegoat, with his identity documents being misused to create a dummy firm for tax evasion. He contended that he has no involvement in the alleged transactions and is willing to cooperate with the investigation, asserting that custodial interrogation is not required as all relevant documents are with the police. The respondent (State/UT) argued that the petitioner committed criminal offenses by forging receipts to evade tax and that his custodial interrogation is essential to ascertain the truth.