Ravindra Kumar vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Facts
The applicant, Ravindra Kumar, is seeking bail in FIR No. 0283 of 2021, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC at Police Station Khanpur, District Haridwar. The applicant has been in judicial custody since May 1, 2022. The prosecution alleges that the applicant, through his company "Scroll India," duped 244 individuals, collecting ₹1,79,72,226 and repaying only ₹31,86,340. The State presented a letter from the Registrar of Companies stating that no company named "M/s Scroll India" or similar names exists in their records. The applicant's counsel argued that the alleged receipts of deposits do not bear the signatures of the eight witnesses listed in the charge sheet and sought information on whether the charge sheet details the 244 investors.
Held
The Court rejected the bail application of Ravindra Kumar. While not expressing an opinion on the merits of the case before the Trial Court, the Court found that the applicant did not deserve bail at this stage. The reasoning appears to be based on the serious allegations of financial fraud involving a large number of victims and a substantial sum of money, coupled with the State's submission that the company claimed by the applicant did not exist in the official records. The Court implicitly considered the evidence presented by the State regarding the non-existence of the company and the scale of the alleged fraud as sufficient grounds to deny bail without delving into the specifics of the witnesses' statements or the number of investors. No specific sections of the GST Act were discussed in relation to the bail decision.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicant, Ravindra Kumar, is entitled to bail in FIR No. 0283 of 2021, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, considering the allegations of duping 244 persons and collecting a significant sum of money. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel contended that the witnesses in the charge sheet generally stated that the alleged receipts of deposits do not bear their signatures. The applicant also claimed to run a registered company, "Scroll India," under GST No. 05AAGCB1323G1Z9, suggesting no fraudulent work was done. The applicant's counsel also sought clarification on the number of investors allegedly duped. Revenue's Arguments: The State vehemently opposed the bail application, presenting a letter from the Registrar of Companies indicating that no company named "M/s Scroll India" or similar names exists in their records. The State further argued that the applicant duped 244 innocent persons, collecting ₹1,79,72,226 and repaying only ₹31,86,340, with the eight agents who facilitated this being listed as witnesses in the charge sheet.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Dated: 16.05.2023
Hon’ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)
Applicant Ravindra Kumar, who is in judicial custody in FIR No.0283 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, Police Station Khanpur, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the accused/applicant is in judicial custody since 01.05.2022 and there are only eight witnesses in the charge sheet against the applicant/accused in the present case and they have generally stated in their evidence that the alleged receipts of the deposits does not bear their signatures.
Per contra, Mr. Lalit Miglani, AGA for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and would
2
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.