Vinay vs. State Of U.P.And 2 Others

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Vinay. The decision was based on the arguments advanced by both parties and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. The Court found the applicant entitled to anticipatory bail, considering the submissions made by his counsel, including the denial of involvement, the claim of false implication, and importantly, the absence of any criminal history. The learned A.G.A.'s inability to dispute these points further supported the grant of bail. The Court explicitly stated that these observations were made without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of the case, which would not adversely affect the trial. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond with two sureties and comply with specific conditions, including availability for interrogation, not inducing witnesses, not leaving India without permission, not tampering with evidence, and appearing before the trial court. Any breach of these conditions would allow the court to cancel the bail.

Facts

The applicant, Vinay, filed an anticipatory bail application in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 297 of 2023, under Section 420 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Highway, District Mathura. The prosecution alleged that the informant provided his ID and password to the applicant for filing GST returns. The applicant is accused of cheating the informant by taking a 3-5% gratification on bills passed through GST numbers, which the informant could not pay. The applicant contended that he was being falsely implicated due to an ulterior motive, denied having the informant's ID and password, and stated he had no criminal antecedents. The learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the bail but could not dispute the applicant's submissions or lack of criminal history.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in the context of allegations of cheating related to GST filings, considering the absence of criminal antecedents and the applicant's defense that he did not possess the necessary credentials to commit the alleged offense? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he was maliciously prosecuted with an ulterior motive and apprehended arrest. He claimed no involvement in the alleged offense, stating he did not possess the informant's ID and password, which would be used by the person in whose name the GST number was sanctioned. The applicant also highlighted several other submissions demonstrating the falsity of the allegations and the circumstances leading to his false implication, emphasizing his lack of criminal antecedents and willingness to cooperate with the trial. Revenue's Arguments: The learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but was unable to dispute the submissions made by the applicant's counsel and the fact that the applicant had no criminal history.