Firoz Rahimbhai Pariyani vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Firoz Rahimbhai Pariyani, approached the Gujarat High Court seeking anticipatory bail after his application was dismissed by the Sessions Court. The FIR registered on July 1, 2022, alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR contained two parts: one concerning allegations of luring the first informant to invest Rs. 90 lakhs in a business venture without returning principal or profit, and another related to alleged offences under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. The applicant contended that the FIR was a counter-blast to civil disputes arising from dishonored cheques worth approximately Rs. 2 crores issued by a witness's firm to the applicant. The applicant offered to deposit Rs. 45 lakhs to show bonafides, without admitting liability. He also argued that GST-related offences should be investigated by GST authorities, not the police, noting he had received no notice from the GST department.

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. Regarding the GST allegations, the Court acknowledged the submission that such matters require investigation by GST authorities, a proposition not disputed by the learned APP. The Court also noted that the applicant had not received any notice from the GST department concerning these allegations. The Court considered the prima facie civil nature of the investment allegations and the applicant's willingness to deposit Rs. 45 lakhs. It also took into account the absence of prior criminal antecedents. The Court relied on the Apex Court's decision in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. The applicant was directed to deposit Rs. 45 lakhs with the learned Trial Court within 30 days, which would be kept in a Fixed Deposit, with disbursement to be decided at the end of the trial. The applicant was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, presence at the police station on a specified date, not inducing witnesses, not obstructing investigation, providing address, and surrendering passports. The Court clarified that the Investigating Agency could seek police remand, and the applicant would be treated in judicial custody for that purpose, but would be set free upon completion of any police remand period, subject to bail conditions. The Trial Court was cautioned not to be influenced by the Court's prima facie observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations concerning offences under the Goods and Services Tax Act, as part of the FIR, are within the purview of investigation by the police, or if they exclusively fall under the jurisdiction of GST authorities, as per the Goods and Services Tax Act? 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the prima facie civil nature of the dispute regarding the investment, the applicant's offer to deposit a significant sum, the lack of prior criminal antecedents, and the contested jurisdiction over GST allegations? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the FIR was a counter-blast to civil disputes. Regarding the GST allegations, the applicant contended that these offenses must be investigated by GST officers, not the police, and highlighted the absence of any notice from the GST department. The applicant offered to deposit Rs. 45 lakhs as a bonafide gesture. Reliance was placed on the principle that GST matters require investigation by the concerned department. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed the application, asserting prima facie allegations of allurement and witness corroboration for the transaction. Regarding GST, the State conceded that GST offences are investigated by GST officers but argued that materials recovered during the investigation into other allegations prima facie showed the applicant's involvement. The first informant's representative argued that GST allegations should not overshadow the principal allegations of cheating and that the deposited amount should be given to the first informant.