Amit Tomar vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application. The Court found that the applicant had caused a substantial loss to the State exchequer, which weighed heavily against granting anticipatory bail. The Court noted that the arguments presented by the applicant's counsel concerning his alleged false implication and other defenses were more appropriate for a regular bail application rather than an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Court explicitly stated that the observations made were solely for the purpose of deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and would not prejudice the trial or the decision on any regular bail application. No specific issues were expressly left undecided, but the core issue of entitlement to anticipatory bail was decided against the applicant.

Facts

The applicant, Amit Tomar, sought anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the applicant obtained a GST number based on documents of a firm he purportedly ran. However, he allegedly engaged in no genuine business, instead producing fake bills and causing a loss of Rs. 171.93 lacs to the State by showing a business turnover of Rs. 955.16 lacs. The applicant claimed false implication due to a demand for illegal gratification, citing a seven-month delay in the FIR, no notice from the tax department, and no criminal antecedents. He asserted his status as a bonafide businessman and willingness to cooperate. The State opposed the bail application, highlighting the significant financial loss caused to the exchequer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the alleged substantial loss caused to the State exchequer due to fraudulent GST claims. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR was delayed without explanation, that no notice was issued by the tax department, and that he is a bonafide businessman with no criminal antecedents. He argued that he had cooperated with the investigation and was ready to continue doing so. The applicant's counsel also suggested that arguments regarding his conduct pertained more to a regular bail application. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application, emphasizing that the applicant was directly responsible for causing a significant loss of Rs. 171.93 lacs to the State exchequer, thereby rendering him disentitled to anticipatory bail.