Pankaj Kumar Saili vs. State Of Uttarakhand

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. It noted that the FIR's primary allegation was that the informant and his wife provided their user ID and password to the accused for GST return submission, and the accused subsequently used their GST account with his mobile number. The Court found no evidence against the accused indicating misuse of money from the informant's or his mother-in-law's accounts. It further observed that whether the amounts shown in those accounts were actually received by the respective individuals was a matter of evidence. The Court acknowledged that the informant himself had provided the user ID and password to the accused. Considering that the applicant had already served approximately four months in jail and that the trial would likely take time to conclude, the Court deemed it a fit case for bail at this stage, without delving into the merits of the case. The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.

Facts

The applicant, Pankaj Kumar Saili, sought release on bail in connection with FIR No. 01 of 2021, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act. The FIR alleged that the informant and his wife had a firm, and they provided their user ID and password to the accused for submitting GST returns. However, the accused allegedly used their GST account with his mobile number. The applicant argued he was falsely implicated, had been in jail since July 1, 2021, and that the informant submitted the information to save GST. He also stated there was no occasion to change the user ID and password and offered to furnish sureties. The State opposed the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 01 of 2021, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act, considering the allegations of misuse of GST accounts and potential financial fraud. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, had been in custody since July 1, 2021, and that the informant's motive was to avoid GST liabilities. He contended that there was no necessity for him to change the user ID and password and expressed readiness to provide sureties. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application.