Neha Vipin Tiwari vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Facts

The applicant, Neha Vipin Tiwari, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No.169 of 2026, registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The allegations in the FIR stated that the applicant, as a Director of Yash Express and Logistics Private Limited, was involved in the deliberate concealment of GST registration cancellation and the repeated issuance of invoices against a cancelled GST number. The applicant contended that she was not in charge of the company's day-to-day business, which was managed by her husband, the Managing Director. She claimed no knowledge of the GST number cancellation or the subsequent invoicing. The applicant stated she had attended the police station and cooperated with the investigation as per an interim order. The State opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the alleged deceitful conduct towards the GST department.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The Court noted that while the applicant was a Director, the transactions were primarily handled by her husband, the Managing Director. It was also pertinent that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and had fully cooperated with the investigation by attending the police station and providing all demanded documents. Considering the nature of the offence, which involved documentary evidence, the Court found that custodial interrogation of the applicant was not warranted. Consequently, the interim protection granted earlier was confirmed. The applicant was to be released on bail upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance Bond and a surety, and was directed to attend the police station as and when called and produce relevant documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, as a Director, can be held responsible for the alleged fraudulent issuance of invoices against a cancelled GST number, particularly when her husband was the Managing Director handling daily operations? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning vicarious liability and knowledge). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that she was merely a Director and not the person responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the company's business. She asserted that her husband, the Managing Director, handled all transactions, and she was unaware of the GST registration cancellation or the issuance of invoices under the cancelled number. She highlighted her full cooperation with the investigation and attendance at the police station as per the court's interim order. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the offences registered were serious, demonstrating deceitful conduct against the GST department, and therefore prayed for the rejection of the anticipatory bail application. The State did not dispute the applicant's cooperation with the investigation.