Chandra Prakash Punetha vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Held
The Court dismissed the bail application. The Court noted that the FIR clearly indicated a transfer of Rs. 60.00 lakh from the informant's account to the accused's account. While a receipt (Annexure-3) dated 02.07.2020 was presented regarding payment of gold ornaments, the Court observed that there was no receipt confirming the informant's receipt of these ornaments. Prima facie, it appeared that the informant did not receive the ornaments as claimed in Annexure-3, and the genuineness of this receipt was questionable, with the State alleging it was a forged document prepared for GST benefits. Considering the gravity of the offence, the Court held that it was not a fit case for granting bail at this stage.
Facts
The applicant, Chandra Prakash Punetha, sought release on bail in connection with FIR No. 36/2021, registered under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2005. The informant alleged transferring Rs. 60.00 lakh to the accused's company account on 02.12.2019. The company allegedly returned Rs. 4.50 lakh, but failed to refund the remaining amount despite requests. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated, was a Director of the company, and that the company had provided gold ornaments worth Rs. 55.50 lakh to the informant on 02.07.2020. The State counsel opposed bail, submitting that Annexure-3, a bill annexed to the bail application, was a forged document prepared by the accused to gain GST benefits, and the informant never received any ornaments.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, considering the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust involving a significant financial transaction and the alleged forgery of a bill for GST benefits? The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, was a Director of the company, and that the company had provided gold ornaments worth Rs. 55.50 lakh to the informant on 02.07.2020, and was ready to furnish sureties. The applicant relied on Annexure-3, a bill dated 02.07.2020, as proof of this transaction. The State and the private respondent opposed bail. The State counsel contended that Annexure-3 was a forged document prepared by the accused to obtain GST benefits, and that the informant had never received any ornaments from the accused's company. The FIR stated that Rs. 60.00 lakh was transferred by the informant, and only Rs. 4.50 lakh was returned, with the remaining amount not refunded despite assurances.
Sections Cited
Section 3 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2005, Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
BA1 No.2438 of 2021 Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Mr. Yogesh Gaur and Mr. Deepak Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Sachin Panwar, learned B.H. for the State.
Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the private respondent.
Accused–Chandra Prakash Punetha has sought his release on bail in connection with Case Crime/FIR No.36/2021 u/s 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments Act), 2005, registered at P.S. Jajardeval, District Pithoragarh.
It is argued that the accused has been falsely implicated; he is Director of the Company; although the informant transferred Rs.60.00 lakh in the account of the company but on 02.07.2020 the company had already given gold ornaments of Rs.55.50 lakh to the informant; he is ready to furnish the sureties and may be granted bail. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as private respondent opposed for bail. The State counsel fairly submitted that the bill which is
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.