Pradeep Vindhyavasini Pandey Urf Pradeep Vindvasini Pandey vs. State Of U.P.

Facts

The applicant, Pradeep Vindhyavasini Pandey, sought bail in a case involving alleged theft of GST. The prosecution alleged that the firm Vindhyavasini Enterprises, with GSTIN-09CYPPP4581G1ZQ, was not found at its registered address. Telephonic inquiries with the applicant were made. Departmental website data indicated the firm purchased large quantities of coal but declared no sales. A complaint suggested the firm was registered on forged documents, leading to allegations of GST evasion. The applicant claimed innocence, stating he had no connection to the firm and that his documents were manipulated. He has been in jail since July 11, 2024.

Held

The Court denied the bail application. The Court noted that the applicant's rejoinder affidavit, which merely stated that his Aadhaar Card, PAN card, and other documents were manipulated by the firm, was not a cogent or reasoned reply to the prosecution's averment that the applicant's signature appeared on the tax invoice of Vindhyavasini Enterprises. Consequently, the Court found nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant had no connection with the firm or that his documents were misused. Therefore, the Court concluded that no good ground was made out for enlarging the applicant on bail, considering the submissions, gravity of the offense, nature of allegations, and attending facts and circumstances, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in Crime No. 338 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C., considering the allegations of GST evasion and the use of forged documents? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the allegations are false and fabricated, and he has no connection with the alleged firm. He denied committing cheating or fraud with GST or obtaining certificates through forged documents, asserting that the GST evasion claims are baseless. He stated he is innocent and falsely implicated, ready to cooperate with the law and accept court conditions. He highlighted his period of incarceration since July 11, 2024. Revenue's Arguments: The State contended that the applicant's innocence cannot be determined at the pre-trial stage and therefore, he is not entitled to indulgence. The State also pointed out the applicant's criminal history.