Goyani Vijay Kumar vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioner, Goyani Vijay Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0040 dated 04.02.2023, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 read with 34 IPC at Police Station Tehsil Camp, Panipat. The allegations involve fraudulent procurement of goods worth approximately Rs. 18,43,000/- through bogus GST bills (No. 105 and 106) issued by the petitioner's firm, Rang Enterprises, in comparison to genuine bills (No. 585 and 934) issued by the complainant's firms. The petitioner claimed the dispute was civil, that the material was defective, and that the e-bills were cancelled within 24 hours. The prosecution alleged the petitioner was not residing at his stated permanent address for six years and that the documents produced to prove his current residence were fabricated. The trial court had previously dismissed the petitioner's interim bail application.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The primary reasoning was based on the prima facie evidence suggesting the generation of two e-bills (No. 105 and 106) without any clear explanation, which appeared to be intended to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. The Court placed significant weight on the verification report from the Sarthana Police Station, Surat City, Gujarat, which confirmed that the petitioner was not residing at the address mentioned in the petition and had not been residing there for the last six years. The Court found that the petitioner's attempt to justify his address through a certificate and a rent agreement (Annexure P-10 and P-12) was an attempt to mislead the Court, especially given the contradictory police report. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously failed to cooperate with the trial court, leading to the dismissal of his interim bail petition. Consequently, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation was necessary for a complete investigation, and thus, anticipatory bail was denied. The petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of fraud and forgery, and the alleged non-residence at the stated address? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the dispute was civil in nature, not criminal. He argued that the e-bills (No. 105 and 106) were generated and immediately cancelled within 24 hours due to defects in the material and refusal to accept returns, providing copies of the bills and cancelled bills as evidence. He also submitted a certificate from the President of Sangana Row House, Puna, Surat, and a rent agreement to establish his current residence. Respondent's (State and Complainant) Arguments: The State and complainant opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner had not resided at his stated permanent address for the last six years. They relied on a verification report from Surat Police stating the petitioner was not found at his residential building and that his father had been residing there for the past six years. They also questioned the authenticity of the rent agreement, deeming the rent amount unbelievable for the area and the document created recently to fabricate evidence. They asserted that the petitioner's intention was to commit fraud by generating forged bills, which were sent to the complainant's mobile phone, which is yet to be recovered.