Ajay Parmar vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court found merit in the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel. It noted that the Division Bench order in WP No. 21614/2024, which held that the prosecution cannot bypass Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017, to lodge FIRs under the IPC for offences related to tax benefits, has not been stayed by the Supreme Court. The Court also considered that other accused persons in identical situations have been granted bail. Given that the applicant has been in jail since 07/10/2023 and the trial is expected to take a considerable amount of time, the Court concluded that the bail application deserves to be allowed. The Court directed the applicant's release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety, subject to conditions under Section 437(3) of CrPC, 1973, and his presence during the trial. The Court explicitly stated it was not commenting on the merits of the case.

Facts

The applicant, Ajay Parmar, is seeking his second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 / 439 of CrPC, 1973. He is implicated in Crime No. 62/2022 registered at Police Station STF, Bhopal Unit, Indore for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 of IPC, 1860, related to alleged fraud to obtain tax benefits. The applicant has been in jail since 07/10/2023. His earlier bail application was dismissed on merits on 29/02/2024. The current application is based on a subsequent Division Bench order in WP No. 21614/2024 dated 11/09/2024, which held that prosecution cannot bypass Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017, to lodge FIRs under IPC. Bail had also been granted to other identically placed accused persons in M.Cr.C. No. 33801/2024 and 54522/2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prosecution can bypass the special provisions of Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017, and lodge FIR for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, when the alleged offence relates to obtaining tax benefits? (Question of law, turning on Section 132 of the GST Act, 2017 and relevant IPC sections). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that a Division Bench of the High Court in WP No. 21614/2024 has held that the GST Act's special provisions must be followed, and FIRs under IPC cannot be lodged to bypass them. They also pointed out that other similarly placed accused persons have been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has been in jail since October 2023, and the trial is likely to take a long time. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed the bail, citing that the bail application of a co-accused, Ajay Parmar, was rejected by the Supreme Court in SLP(Crl.) No. 8868/2024. They also mentioned that another case of a similar nature has been registered against the applicant. While acknowledging that the Division Bench order in WP No. 21614/2024 is under challenge before the Supreme Court, the State admitted there is no stay on that order.