Patel Sanjaybhai Shamalbhai vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Patel Sanjaybhai Shamalbhai, filed an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR C.R. No.I-4 of 2017. The FIR was registered with C.I.D. Crime, Ahmedabad Zone, for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The prosecution alleges that one Nilesh Mali, in connivance with others, prepared false bills to evade tax, causing a loss of Rs. 68,12,214/- to the State Government. The applicant claims his Aadhar Card was misused to create a fictitious firm, and co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail. The State opposed the bail application, citing the gravity of the offence and the applicant's alleged role as proprietor of Jaydeep Traders.

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court observed that, prima facie, the applicant did not appear to have played a major role in the alleged offence. The FIR itself indicated that prominent roles were played by original accused No. 1, Nilesh Swarupchandra Mali, and original accused No. 5, Nirav Ratilal Thakkar. The applicant was named only in a supplementary charge-sheet and not by the first informant. The Court considered the applicant's role, the fact that he was not named in the FIR, the grant of bail to co-accused with similar roles, and the necessity of custodial interrogation. Relying on Apex Court judgments in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra, the Court granted anticipatory bail. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to several conditions including cooperation with the investigation and presence as required. The Court also clarified that the investigating agency could still apply for police remand, which the Magistrate would decide on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of tax evasion and forgery under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and the Indian Penal Code. Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: The applicant argued that his identity documents were misused to create a fictitious firm. He contended that co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail by coordinate benches of this Court and that custodial interrogation is not necessary at this stage. The applicant also agreed to abide by all conditions, including the investigating agency's right to seek remand. Respondent/State: The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, emphasizing the nature and gravity of the offence. Reliance was placed on the investigating officer's report indicating a loss of GST revenue to the tune of Rs. 68,12,214/- due to the applicant's alleged proprietorship of Jaydeep Traders.