Gaurav Maheshwari vs. State

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Court noted that a charge-sheet had been filed against the petitioner for offences triable by a Magistrate, and the investigation was complete, with the petitioner in judicial custody. While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations regarding the creation of bogus firms and fraudulent GST refunds, the Court chose not to express any opinion on the merits of the case. The bail was granted considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, including the ongoing lockdown due to COVID-19, which made furnishing sureties difficult. The petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- and was allowed to furnish sureties by May 30, 2020. Conditions were imposed, including not leaving the country without prior permission and making himself available to the investigating agencies, including the GST Department. Failure to comply with the conditions could lead to cancellation of bail.

Facts

The petitioner, Gaurav Maheshwari, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 146/2018 for offences including cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner created bogus firms to fraudulently issue GST invoices without actual sale/purchase or movement of goods, thereby misappropriating approximately ₹17 crores of government money. The petitioner argued that the allegations were false, that the complainant was his brother-in-law who had withdrawn money via cheques signed by him, and that all his transactions were lawful. He also stated that he had been in custody since October 30, 2019, and a charge-sheet had been filed for offences triable by a Magistrate. The complainant and Public Prosecutor opposed bail, highlighting the large sum misappropriated and the petitioner's alleged role as the kingpin.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the charges of creating bogus firms and fraudulently claiming GST refunds for non-existent transactions? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the allegations were false, that he had not created bogus firms, and that all his transactions were in accordance with the law. He emphasized that a charge-sheet had been filed for offences triable by a Magistrate and that he had been in custody since October 30, 2019. Revenue/State's Arguments: The prosecution and complainant argued that the petitioner was guilty of misappropriating around ₹17 crores of government money through fraudulent GST refunds. They stated that only a small portion had been recovered and that the petitioner was the kingpin of the fraud, with withdrawn money deposited in relatives' accounts. They also raised concerns about witness influence and the ongoing investigation by the GST department.