Panchanan Sardar vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence

Facts

The petitioner, Panchanan Sardar, proprietor of M/s. Jai Bhole Enterprises, sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with a complaint case involving offences under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, and various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) opposed the bail, alleging the petitioner's non-cooperation in the investigation. The DGGI contended that the petitioner was present at a business premises on October 26, 2023, but escaped to avoid questioning. Furthermore, landowners confirmed no commercial activity at the stated business locations. The petitioner's alleged evasion was further evidenced by multiple summons issued and a missing report filed by his family. The DGGI highlighted that co-accused Gyaan Chandra Jaiswal and Raaj Jaiswal had been granted bail, but argued the principle of parity was inapplicable due to the petitioner's absconding behavior.

Held

The Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail. The Court found that the petitioner was instrumental in creating bogus companies through which fraudulent transactions originated, leading to the misappropriation of Rs. 55.66 crores of government money. While acknowledging that co-accused Gyaan Chandra Jaiswal and Raaj Jaiswal had cooperated with the investigation and were granted bail (regular and anticipatory, respectively), the Court noted that the petitioner had consistently failed to respond to multiple notices and summons. The Court observed that the petitioner had absconded when officers visited the factory premises, demonstrating deliberate evasion. Therefore, the Court held that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court regarding bail after charge-sheet for cooperating individuals was not applicable in this case, as the petitioner was still absconding. The Court concluded that the attending facts and circumstances did not warrant the grant of anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering his alleged non-cooperation with the investigation and evasion of summons, despite co-accused being granted bail? The petitioner argued that he is the proprietor of a registered firm and that another individual, Gyaan Chandra Jaiswal, used his identity to create a fake firm and misappropriate approximately Rs. 55 crores. He pointed out that Gyaan Chandra Jaiswal had been granted regular bail and Raaj Jaiswal had been granted anticipatory bail, suggesting parity should apply. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail on these grounds. The revenue (DGGI) opposed the prayer, stating the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation. They argued that while Gyaan Chandra Jaiswal and Raaj Jaiswal had cooperated, the petitioner had deliberately evaded questioning, even escaping from a business premises. The DGGI asserted that the petitioner was the proprietor of a bogus firm and had failed to appear despite multiple summons, and that his family had filed a missing report, indicating an intent to abscond. Therefore, the DGGI contended that the principle of parity was not applicable.