Himmatsingh Sisodiya vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer on July 24, 2019, and joined the investigation. The Investigating Officer made a note in the case diary indicating that, as per the investigation, an amount of Rs. 1,88,584/- had been deposited as GST by the petitioner's firm between February 2018 and October 2018. Taking this fact into consideration, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court deemed it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, and adhere to conditions including availability for interrogation, not inducing witnesses, and not leaving India without prior court permission.

Facts

The petitioner, Himmatsingh Sisodiya, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 15/2019 registered at Police Station Mandore, Jodhpur, for offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations pertained to the non-deposition of GST amounts belonging to the complainant firm. The petitioner claimed he was engaged for account work, completed it diligently, and that the FIR was false, lodged in collusion with a third party from whom the petitioner was demanding money. He stated he had joined the investigation and submitted documents. The prosecution, however, alleged the petitioner submitted forged bills indicating GST payment when it was not actually paid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 15/2019 for alleged offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, concerning the non-deposition of GST amounts. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the allegations of not depositing GST were false. He asserted that he had completed his account work for the complainant firm without any irregularities. He further claimed the FIR was a result of a conspiracy with a third party, Kartik Tak, from whom the petitioner was demanding a substantial sum. The petitioner emphasized that he had already joined the investigation as directed by the Court and submitted his representation with documents, rendering further interrogation unnecessary. Respondent's (State and Complainant) arguments: The Public Prosecutor and the complainant's counsel vehemently opposed the bail application. They argued that the petitioner had submitted forged bills suggesting GST payment, which was not true. They contended that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.