Ritesh vs. State Of Haryana
Facts
The petitioner, Ritesh, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 782 dated 15.12.2021, registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Gurgaon Sadar, District Gurugram. The State of Haryana, the respondent, submitted that while the petitioner was not related to a co-accused, they were acquainted. The petitioner was the proprietor of M/s R.K. Trading and had stood surety for M/s King Enterprises. Both firms were found to be non-existent at their given addresses. Additionally, the petitioner had stood surety for another fake firm, M/s Raj International, which was also non-existent. The State argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner did not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The reasoning was that, prima facie, the petitioner appeared to be an active participant in the fraud perpetrated on the GST Council. Consequently, his custodial interrogation was deemed necessary. The Court explicitly stated that anything observed in the judgment should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition. No issues were expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of involvement in a fraud perpetuated on the GST Council? The petitioner argued for anticipatory bail, seeking the extraordinary concession. The respondent, State of Haryana, argued for the dismissal of the petition, contending that the petitioner's custodial interrogation was necessitated by his alleged active participation in a fraud involving non-existent firms and standing surety for them, thereby perpetuating a fraud on the GST Council. The State highlighted the petitioner's proprietorship of M/s R.K. Trading and his surety for M/s King Enterprises and M/s Raj International, both found to be non-existent.
Sections Cited
Section 438
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 CRM-M-30730-2024 Date of decision: 30.07.2024 Ritesh .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Pardhuman Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, AAG, Haryana. **** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner is seeking the concession of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.782 dated 15.12.2021 under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Gurgaon Sadar, District Gurugram.
In compliance of order dated 16.07.2024, learned State counsel, on instructions, has submitted that though the petitioner was not related to co-accused Vikas, however, during investigation it had surfaced that they were well acquainted with each other. It has been submitted that the petitioner was proprietor of M/s R.K. Trading and he had stood as a surety for M/s King Enterprises; both M/s R.K. Trading as well as M/s King Enterprises were found to be non-existent at the given address. It has also been submitted by the learned State counsel VINAY 2024.07.31 09:33 I att
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.