Karan Singh Chouhan vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the applicant's case was distinguishable from that of the co-accused, Deepak Sinhal. The Court found that the applicant was not merely a witness to the forged rent agreements but was a party to their creation, knowing they were being prepared for the establishment of bogus firms. The Court noted that the applicant's involvement extended to being a party in the creation of these firms, and seizures were made based on his memorandum. The Court emphasized that the offense under Section 467 of the IPC is punishable with life imprisonment, which is a more serious offense than the GST Act offense highlighted by the applicant. Therefore, the grounds of parity were not applicable. The bail application was dismissed.

Facts

The applicant, Karan Singh Chouhan, filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case relates to FIR No. 62/2022 registered at Police Station ATS, Bhopal, for offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant's case was similar to that of a co-accused, Deepak Sinhal, who was granted bail. The co-accused had obtained forged bills and received wrongful gains of Rs. 87,49,147/- as tax input credit, with the GST Act offense punishable up to three years imprisonment. The State opposed the bail, contending that the applicant's role was different. The applicant allegedly collected documents from individuals to induce them to get jobs, signed forged rent agreements as a witness, and helped create bogus firms like Ashirwad Exim Sales Corporation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on grounds of parity with a co-accused, considering the alleged involvement in obtaining forged bills and wrongful tax input credit, under Section 439 CrPC and Section 32 of the GST Act? 2. Whether the applicant's role in the alleged offenses, including the creation of false documents and bogus firms, distinguishes his case from that of the co-accused, thereby disentitling him to bail under Section 439 CrPC and Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC? Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: The applicant's case is similarly situated to that of co-accused Deepak Sinhal, who was granted bail by this Court. The applicant's alleged wrongful gain was limited to 5% tax input credit on Rs. 87,49,147/-, and the offense under Section 32 of the GST Act is punishable up to three years imprisonment. Therefore, on grounds of parity, the applicant should also be granted bail. Revenue/State: The applicant's role is entirely different from the co-accused. The applicant committed offenses of cheating by collecting documents from individuals under false pretenses of providing jobs, signed forged rent agreements as a witness, and actively participated in the creation of bogus firms. The offense under Section 467 of the IPC is punishable with life imprisonment.