Deepak Singhal vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, considering the facts and circumstances without commenting on the merits of the case. The Court noted that the applicant had been in jail since October 7, 2023, and that the prosecution could not establish that the firm Agrawal Axim belonged to the applicant. The applicant's willingness to deposit Rs. 7,11,953/- under protest before the trial court was a significant factor. The Court also observed that the applicant was an income taxpayer and there was no likelihood of him absconding, especially since the investigation was complete and charge sheet filed. The bail was granted on the condition that the applicant deposit Rs. 7,11,953/- under protest before the trial court, which would be kept in FDR and subject to the final judgment. The applicant was also required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with a surety and abide by the conditions under Section 437(3) of the Cr. P. C.

Facts

The applicant, Deepak Singhal, a businessman, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr. P. C. in FIR No. 61/2022 registered at Police Station ATS, Bhopal, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the applicant earned wrongful gain by misusing the input tax credit scheme, with the offence purportedly committed under Section 132 of the GST Act. The applicant had been in jail since October 7, 2023. He argued that he was falsely implicated, that allegations were similar to another crime number (Crime No. 62/2022) in which he was enlarged on bail, and that he was willing to deposit Rs. 7,11,953/- under protest, subject to the trial court's final judgment. The State opposed the bail, contending the applicant had multiple firms and illegally gained money through input tax credit misuse, including in a company named Agrawal Axim.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr. P. C. considering the alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Section 132 of the GST Act, and the applicant's willingness to deposit the disputed amount. Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued his innocence, false implication, and similarity of allegations to a case where he was granted bail. He emphasized his status as a businessman and offered to deposit Rs. 7,11,953/- under protest, contingent on the trial court's final decision. He also pointed out that the investigation was complete and charge sheet filed. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed bail, asserting the applicant's involvement in multiple firms, illegal gains through input tax credit misuse, and wrongful gains concerning Agrawal Axim. They argued that the application deserved dismissal.