Saurabh Kumar vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application. The Court considered the submissions of both parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of the allegations and the role played by the applicant. The Court found that the applicant's alleged involvement in managing 12 fake firms, facilitating fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the tune of approximately Rs. 8,99,46,939/- through paper invoices without actual supply of goods between February 2018 and March 2020, and his alleged attempts to influence witnesses and destroy evidence, made it an unfit case for granting bail. The Court was of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The operative direction was the dismissal of the bail application.

Facts

This is a bail application filed by Saurabh Kumar under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. concerning a GST intelligence case (Crime No.DGGI/INV/GST/4059/2022GR-A). The applicant is accused of offenses under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(f), and 132(1)(I) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The applicant claims innocence, stating no incriminating material was seized from him and he is a permanent resident with no risk of absconding. He has been in custody since October 24, 2023. The respondent, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, opposes bail, alleging the applicant admitted to managing 12 fake firms, including Savita Traders and JK Shrimall Enterprises, and supplying invoices/e-way bills for monetary consideration. The applicant is accused of facilitating fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the tune of approximately Rs. 8,99,46,939/- through fake invoices without actual supply of goods between February 2018 and March 2020. He is also alleged to have used individuals' identity documents for opening fake firms and bank accounts, managed GST returns, and attempted to destroy evidence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of involvement in the creation and operation of fake firms and fraudulent ITC, as per Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant is innocent and falsely implicated. No incriminating material was seized from his possession. He is a permanent resident of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, and there is no possibility of his absconding. Therefore, he prays for the grant of bail. Respondent's Arguments: The applicant, in his statements recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, admitted to managing 12 fake firms, including Savita Traders and JK Shrimall Enterprises. He admitted to supplying invoices/e-way bills for monetary consideration and facilitating fraudulent ITC amounting to approximately Rs. 8,99,46,939/- through paper invoices without actual supply of goods between February 2018 and March 2020. The applicant is suspected of operating more fake firms and used individuals' identity documents for opening fake firms and bank accounts. He also attempted to influence witnesses and destroy evidence. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail.