Naresh Kumar Mulani vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail. The primary issue was whether the applicants should be granted anticipatory bail given the serious allegations of forgery and the substantial financial loss caused to the GST Department. The Court considered the nature of the allegations against the applicants, which included the creation of forged invoices by non-existing firms for wrongful availment of input tax credit, leading to a significant loss to the government. The Court also noted that the investigation in the matter was still ongoing. Based on these considerations, the Court found no grounds to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. The ratio decidendi is that in cases involving serious economic offences with ongoing investigations, anticipatory bail may not be granted. The operative direction was the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Naresh Kumar Mulani and Hemant Mulani under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They sought anticipatory bail in relation to FIR/Crime No. 2/2024, registered on January 30, 2024, by the Special Task Force, Bhopal. The FIR charges them with offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 132(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The prosecution alleges that the applicants, along with co-accused, committed forgery and caused a loss of approximately Rs. 2.61 Crore to the GST Department. The investigation revealed that a forged invoice was issued by a non-existing firm, M/s Jyoti Traders, allegedly created by the applicants, without the supply of goods, for wrongful availment of input tax credit or refund. Further investigation indicated that M/s Galaxy Buildcon, in connivance with M/s Jyoti Traders, wrongfully availed input tax credit, causing a loss of Rs. 74,466/-. The applicants are accused of creating various firms to cause a substantial loss to the GST Department.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of forgery and significant financial loss to the GST Department under Section 132(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants argued that they are innocent, falsely implicated, and the allegations of forgery are baseless. They contended that there is no likelihood of them absconding or tampering with evidence and that they are ready to cooperate with the investigation and trial. Therefore, they should be granted anticipatory bail. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposed the application, submitting that given the nature of the accusations, involving forgery and a loss of approximately Rs. 2.61 Crore to the GST Department, the applicants are not entitled to anticipatory bail.