Rajesh Suneja vs. State Of U.P.

Facts

The applicant, Rajesh Suneja, is involved in a case crime no. 47 of 2024, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Sections 66C, 66D of the IT Act, and Section 132 of the GST Act. The FIR alleges that a proprietorship firm, 'MYRA EXPORTS', was formed with a GST number but conducted no business and issued no bills. The informant had provided his email ID and password to his CA, Praveen Bansal, for filing GST returns. Subsequently, it was discovered that forged bills of huge amounts were issued by the firm, and the email ID and password were hacked. The applicant's name surfaced during the investigation based on the statement of a co-accused, Aman Prajapati, who claimed the applicant purchased the firm's ID. The applicant has been in jail since August 24, 2024.

Held

The Court considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and the nature and gravity of the offence. It also took into account the evidence, the complicity of the accused, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found it to be a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Specific conditions were imposed, including not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, appearing before the trial court, not committing similar offences, and not influencing witnesses. The Court noted that in case of breach of any condition, the prosecution could move a bail cancellation application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 47 of 2024 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Sections 66C, 66D of the IT Act, and Section 132 of the GST Act, considering the allegations of forgery, cheating, and misuse of GST credentials? Arguments for the Applicant: The applicant contends he is innocent and falsely implicated. He denies any connection to the informant's firm or receiving its credentials. He argues that the alleged cybercrimes were not committed by him and that his name emerged based on the statement of a co-accused, Aman Prajapati, who allegedly implicated him by stating Utsav Gupta sold the firm's ID to the applicant. The applicant asserts there is no evidence against him except the co-accused's statement and that his criminal history has been explained. He states he is a general merchant and has been in jail since August 24, 2024. Arguments for the State (Revenue): The learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.