Sajid vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the applicant does not deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail at this stage. The reasoning was based on the serious nature of the allegations, the magnitude of the tax evasion amounting to Rs. 1,86,45,662/-, the use of forged documents for obtaining GST registration, and the ongoing stage of the investigation. The Court found the petitioner's claims regarding lost documents unsubstantiated by prima facie material. The ratio decidendi is that in cases involving significant financial fraud, use of forged documents, and ongoing investigations, anticipatory bail may be denied if the applicant fails to provide credible evidence to support their defence, especially concerning the alleged misuse of their identity documents.

Facts

The petitioner, Sajid, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 60/2022 registered at Police Station STF Unit, Bhopal, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The State Tax Officer, Anti-Evasion Bureau, Gwalior, complained that a firm, M/s Trisha Traders, was registered using forged documents on the GST portal. An inspection revealed the firm did not exist at the registered address, and the uploaded documents, including a photograph of a Hollywood actor and an electricity bill belonging to another person, were fabricated. Fake invoices were generated, and bogus Input Tax Credit was passed on, leading to tax evasion of Rs. 1,86,45,662/-. The petitioner's PAN card was used for the GST registration, and he was not found at his provided address. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating his Aadhaar and PAN cards were lost in 2019 and potentially misused.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of BNSS/438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with the alleged tax evasion and use of forged documents for GST registration? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He contended that his Aadhaar Card and PAN Card were lost in 2019 and might have been misused by unknown persons to create a fictitious firm in his name. He further stated that he belongs to a poor family, is a BPL card holder, earns his livelihood through daily wage labour, has no criminal antecedents, and is a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh. He expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by the Court. Respondent's Arguments: The State opposed the application, praying for its rejection due to the serious nature and gravity of the offence. The State submitted that the investigation is ongoing and the applicant has not produced any prima facie material to substantiate his claim regarding the loss of his documents in 2019.