Smt. Shalini Singhal vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Smt. Shalini Singhal. The Court noted that the alleged crime appears to have been committed prior to or during 2020, and the revenue authorities conducted a detailed investigation before lodging the FIR. Based on this, the Court concluded that custodial interrogation might not be required. While not expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, the Court deemed it appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail. The applicant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority. The order is operative subject to the applicant complying with six conditions, including cooperating with the investigation, not tampering with evidence, not committing similar offences, not seeking unnecessary adjournments, and not leaving India without prior permission.

Facts

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by Smt. Shalini Singhal, who apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 49/2023 registered at Police Station EOW, Ujjain. The FIR pertains to alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story, based on an investigation by CGST and Central Excise, Ujjain, in Enquiry No. 3/2021 concerning Agrawal Soya Extract Pvt. Ltd., suggests that bills and invoices from certain trading companies were found to be forged, and these companies were non-existent. It is alleged that Agrawal Soya Extract Pvt. Ltd. fraudulently entered into sales of soyabean and claimed tax credit, causing loss to the exchequer. The applicant is alleged to be a Director of Agrawal Soya Extract Pvt. Ltd. and involved in a criminal conspiracy to prepare bogus invoices for sham transactions to obtain GST Input Tax Credit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Smt. Shalini Singhal, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of her involvement as a Director in a company that allegedly engaged in fraudulent transactions and claimed Input Tax Credit based on forged documents, thereby causing loss to the exchequer, and the pendency of investigation? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and principles of anticipatory bail). Contentions: Petitioner (Smt. Shalini Singhal): Argued that she has been falsely implicated, is a dormant partner, and has no involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the company. She is the wife of a co-accused and claims the bank account was operated by another co-accused. She is ready to cooperate with the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. She is ready to abide by any conditions imposed. Respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh): Opposed the bail application, contending that the applicant and other co-accused are active directors involved in similar cases and habitually issue forged bills for false Input Tax Credit benefits. They argued that the applicant committed a white-collar crime, the investigation is pending, and custodial interrogation may be required, thus the application should be dismissed.