The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mohit Jain

Held

The Court held that the grounds raised by the petitioner/State for recalling the bail order were without merit. The Court noted that the original bail order was in respect of a complaint by a private person alleging fraud to the tune of Rupees Sixty Lakhs, which had already been paid by the respondent to the complainant, as recorded in the previous order. Regarding the GST evasion, the Court observed that a separate case had been registered for it. Crucially, the Court noted that even according to the prosecution, the GST evasion case had nothing to do with the present case, as they were different in nature and related to different provisions of law. Therefore, no case for interference was made out. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Station House Officer of the Crime Branch, Indore, filed an application under Section 439(2) of the CrPC seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to the respondent, Mohit Jain. The bail was granted on May 29, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 23/2023 registered at the Crime Branch, Indore, for offences under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC. The initial bail order was a consent order, as the complainant had no objection after receiving Rupees Sixty Lakhs. The State argued that the bail was wrongly granted because, in addition to the alleged cheating of Rupees Sixty-Eight Lakhs, the respondent was also involved in large-scale GST evasion, for which a separate case had been registered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the regular bail granted to the respondent, Mohit Jain, in connection with Crime No. 23/2023 for offences under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC should be cancelled on the grounds of subsequent discovery of GST evasion. Petitioner's Arguments: The State contended that the bail was wrongly allowed because the respondent was involved in large-scale GST evasion, for which a separate case had been registered. They argued that since this evasion came to light only after the bail was granted, the bail application should be allowed and the previously granted bail rejected. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that no case for interference was made out as charges had already been framed in the present case, and there was no reference to GST evasion in it. They further submitted that the GST evasion case is separate, and an interim application in a related writ petition (W.P.No.23110/2023) had already been rejected. The respondent also stated that he had not misused the liberty granted and there was no allegation of suppression of facts.