Md. Tanjimul Ashad Khan vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. It noted that various High Courts and the Apex Court have considered similar matters in favour of applicants. The Court referred to the Apex Court's decision in Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) regarding factors to be considered for granting anticipatory bail, such as the nature of the offence, the role of the applicant, likelihood of influencing investigation, tampering with evidence, and fleeing justice. The Court observed that the alleged amount involved was approximately Rs. 10 Crores, and if the amount exceeds Rs. 5 Crores, the maximum sentence is five years. It also pointed out the provision for compounding of offences under Section 138 of the GST Act. Consequently, the Court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted and detaining the applicant would adversely affect his business. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail with specific conditions, including furnishing a personal bond and sureties, cooperating with the investigation, not inducing witnesses, keeping his mobile operational, sharing his location, not committing further offences, and surrendering his passport.

Facts

The applicant, Md. Tanjimul Ashad Khan, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered for offences including those under the IPC and the IT Act. The FIR alleged that a complainant was induced to form a proprietorship firm, 'Maa Narmada Traders,' and obtain GST registration. Without the complainant's knowledge, co-accused allegedly registered an email ID and used the complainant's son's mobile number for GST OTP verifications. Subsequently, GST registration was issued, and tax dues of Rs. 72,66,408/- were found outstanding. The prosecution alleged that bogus transactions worth crores were shown, and GST returns were fraudulently filed using OTPs and documents. Several other bogus firms were also floated, allegedly used for fraudulent transactions with various entities, causing a wrongful loss of approximately Rs. 33.80 Crores to the State exchequer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (equivalent to Section 438 of Cr.P.C.) given the allegations of fraudulent GST transactions and the amount involved, and if so, what conditions should be imposed? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 482 BNSS, 2023, 438 Cr.P.C., and the principles of anticipatory bail). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that various High Courts have granted anticipatory bail in matters concerning Section 132 of the GST Act, even when the amount involved exceeds Rs. 5 Crores, as the maximum punishment is five years. They contended that the GST Act is a self-contained code and custodial interrogation is not required. Reliance was placed on cases like Akram Pasha v. Senior Intelligence Officer, Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government of NCT of Delhi, and Sushil Kumar Singla v. State of UT Chandigarh, arguing that the applicant should be granted bail. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent opposed the bail application, referring to Section 131 of the GST Act. They argued that the offences are serious, custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover further scams, and the fraudulent amount might increase. They emphasized that GST provisions generate national assets and such activities jeopardize national interest, thus a serious view should be taken.