Ganga Ram vs. State Of Ut, Chandigarh

Facts

The petitioner, Ganga Ram, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 390 dated 16.12.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh. The FIR alleged that co-accused Abhishek Modgil, nephew of the petitioner, raised fake bills as proprietor of M/s Mahadev Metals, availing GST benefits exceeding Rs. 4 crores. The petitioner was not initially named but investigation revealed his mobile numbers were linked to the GSTIN application and a bank account of the co-accused. The petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge but his bail application was dismissed for non-cooperation. The respondent argued that the petitioner was evading arrest since 2019 and had also faced dismissal of his anticipatory bail application by the Special Judge, PMLA, Chandigarh.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the serious allegations against the petitioner, including his alleged involvement in tax evasion of over Rs. 4 crores through fake bills and his connection to the GSTIN and bank accounts of the co-accused. The Court also took into account the respondent's submission that the petitioner had been evading arrest for approximately three years since the FIR was registered in 2019 and that his anticipatory bail application had been dismissed by the Special Judge, PMLA. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found no grounds to grant the concession of anticipatory bail. The operative direction was the dismissal of the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the serious allegations of tax evasion and fraud involving GST benefits exceeding Rs. 4 crores, and his alleged non-cooperation with the investigation and evasion of arrest for approximately three years. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he was not named in the FIR, not a proprietor or partner in the firm M/s Mahadev Metals, and that his nephew, Abhishek Modgil, who was granted anticipatory bail by this Court, was made a scapegoat. The petitioner claimed to have joined the investigation earlier. Respondent's arguments: The respondent-U.T., Chandigarh, opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioner's mobile numbers were linked to the GSTIN and bank accounts, suggesting he was operating the business and committing tax evasion. They also pointed to the dismissal of his anticipatory bail application by the Special Judge, PMLA, and his failure to furnish bail bonds, indicating evasion of arrest.