Depesh Tiwari vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's conduct, including not appearing despite summons and repeated Farari Panchnamas indicating he was untraceable, suggested an attempt to avoid the investigation. The Court found that the investigation regarding the petitioner had stalled and that the allegations required thorough investigation, especially given the large tax evasion amount (over 15 crores) and the need to trace the money trail. The Court considered the prosecution's requirement for custodial interrogation to be reasonable in these circumstances. The Court also noted, based on information from the prosecution, that the petitioner had criminal antecedents of a similar nature. The Court declined to interfere, citing the gravity of the offense, the complexity of the allegations, and the necessity of custodial interrogation. The Court emphasized that its observations were for the purpose of deciding the bail application and would not prejudice the rights of the parties during the investigation or trial. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Depesh Tiwari, an accused in a case registered under Section 132(1)(i) of the State Goods and Service Tax (SGST) Act, 2017, and Section 120B of the IPC, filed an anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest. The prosecution alleged large-scale tax evasion involving over 15 crores. The petitioner contended that the evidence was not incriminating, the allegations primarily pertained to co-accused, and his written submissions in 2019-2020 obviated the need for custodial interrogation. He also claimed he was unwell when initially summoned and had no relation to the alleged Commercial Corporation. The prosecution countered that the investigation was stalled due to the petitioner's non-cooperation, with Farari Panchnamas indicating he was absconding. They argued custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the money trail and highlighted a forged letter regarding the petitioner's bank account. Co-accused were arrested and granted default bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of large-scale tax evasion and the need for custodial interrogation? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 438 Cr.P.C. and Section 132(1)(i) SGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's Arguments: - The evidence collected is not incriminating and primarily against co-accused. - Custodial interrogation is unnecessary as the petitioner provided written submissions in 2019-2020. - Relied on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (AIR 2011 SC 312) for the principle that arrest should not be made without need for custodial interrogation. - The petitioner was unwell when initially summoned and later filed written submissions, indicating willingness to cooperate. - The petitioner has no relationship with the alleged corporation, and accompanying a co-accused to the bank does not imply involvement. Respondent's (State) Arguments: - The investigation has come to a standstill due to the petitioner's non-cooperation and absconding, evidenced by multiple Farari Panchnamas. - Custodial interrogation is necessary to trace the money trail in a case involving large-scale tax evasion. - The petitioner's bank account showed significant debits and credits between 2017-2019. - A letter suggesting resolution of the tax dispute and defreezing of the bank account was found to be forged. - The petitioner has criminal antecedents of a similar nature.