Kunal Mehta Alias Goldee vs. State Of U.P.

Facts

The applicant, Kunal Mehta Alias Goldee, is seeking bail in two criminal miscellaneous bail applications concerning Case Crime Nos. 203 of 2023 and 255 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC, registered at Police Station Noida Sector-20, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. The applicant claims he is not named in the FIR and his name surfaced only through a co-accused's confessional statement. He highlights his detention period from March 4, 2024, and the submission of the charge sheet on May 20, 2024, arguing against indefinite detention. The State, however, contends that documents related to a fake GST firm (Nepal Chinda - Trade Name Ara Impex) were recovered from the applicant, indicating his involvement in obtaining GST benefits through fake firm registration. The case involves alleged forgery and registration of fake GST firms.

Held

The Court addressed the admissibility of co-accused's statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It explained that Section 27 allows for the admissibility of information received from an accused in custody that leads to the discovery of a fact, balancing law enforcement needs with accused's rights. The Court found that the discovery of facts in this case, such as laptops, mobiles, SIM cards, and fake invoices at the firm's office, which connected the arrested individuals to the main accused and the registration of fake firms, was admissible as per Section 27. Therefore, the applicant's argument that confessional statements cannot be taken as evidence was rejected. The Court also considered the nature of the offence, describing it as an economic offence involving a large money trail affecting society. It noted that the applicant's case was squarely covered by a previous order dated August 31, 2024, in Rajiv Jindal v. State of U.P., where similar bail applications were rejected. The Court distinguished the applicant's situation from the Sanjay Chandra case, stating that the period of detention is only one factor. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether a confessional statement of a co-accused, which is not a primary piece of evidence, can be considered for granting bail in economic offences, particularly when the applicant claims no direct involvement and the charge sheet has been filed? (Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and principles of bail). 2. Whether the applicant's detention period and the submission of the charge sheet warrant his release on bail, notwithstanding the nature and gravity of the alleged economic offences? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR, and his name emerged solely from a co-accused's confessional statement, which is insufficient evidence. They emphasized the applicant's period of detention (since March 4, 2024) and the filing of the charge sheet (May 20, 2024), citing the principle from Sanjay Chandra v. CBI that indefinite detention is not permissible. They also argued that the applicant is not connected with the registration of fake GST firms. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State's counsel countered that documents pertaining to a fake GST firm were recovered from the applicant, demonstrating his involvement in obtaining GST benefits. They argued that in economic offences, the statements of co-accused and confessional statements are relevant for bail considerations, citing Supreme Court decisions. They further contended that all material in the case diary, including statements, must be considered, and that the applicant's case is similar to that of other accused whose bail applications were rejected in Rajiv Jindal v. State of U.P.