Shivam Gupta vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, finding that the applicant has been implicated in the theft of GST. It observed that proceedings under the GST Act could have been initiated, and implication under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was not correct. The Court considered the nature of the offence, the evidence, the applicant's complicity, and the rival contentions. It found merit in the submissions made by the applicant's counsel, particularly regarding the uncertainty of trial conclusion, the one-sided investigation by the police, and the applicant's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Citing the Apex Court's dictum in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., and considering jail overcrowding, the Court granted bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case. The applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence, not threatening witnesses, filing an undertaking regarding adjournments, remaining present in court, and facing proceedings under Section 174-A IPC if proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and he fails to appear. Breach of any condition would be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Facts

The applicant, Shivam Gupta, is seeking bail in a case involving alleged theft of GST amounting to Rs. 66,62,062/-. The FIR was lodged by the Assistant Commissioner, Economic Offences Wing, Commercial Tax Range-B, Gorakhpur. An inspection revealed that the registered place of business for the applicant's GSTIN did not exist, with no firm board or stock found. The land where the business was allegedly located belonged to another individual who denied letting it out to the applicant. The applicant's phone had no incoming facility, and he was accused of concocting documents to cheat the department. The applicant claims to be a poor MANREGA labour, falsely implicated, with no bank transactions or money recovered. He asserts he sells chowmein on a cart and has been in jail since August 30, 2022. The trial is expected to take time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the implication of the applicant under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is correct, given the allegations pertain to GST theft? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant is a poor MANREGA labour, falsely implicated, and that no financial transactions or money were recovered from him. They highlighted that the applicant sells chowmein on a cart, as certified by the village pradhan, and has been incarcerated since August 30, 2022. The trial is likely to be prolonged. They also contended that proceedings under the GST Act could have been initiated, and implication under IPC provisions is incorrect. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) opposed the bail application, stating that the case involves theft of GST amounting to Rs. 66,62,062/-.