Aniketh Jain vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is cooperating with the investigation and is willing to abide by bail conditions. The Court also noted that the case is based on documentary evidence. Considering these factors and all other facets of the case without elaborating, the Court found it to be a fit case to exercise judicial discretion in favor of granting anticipatory bail. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to furnishing personal bonds and surety, and adhering to conditions including appearing when required, not leaving India without prior permission, and not inducing or threatening any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Aniketh Jain, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 24 of 2022, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR stemmed from an inspection of M/s Dutch Formulation's business premises, where a discrepancy of Rs. 3.39 crores was detected in stock supplies, failing to be explained by the taxable person. Subsequent investigation, including under the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011, led to the registration of the FIR. The petitioner was identified as being involved in connivance with M/s Danish Lab and M/s Dutch Formulation. He allegedly purchased Extra Natural Alcohol (ENA) for M/s Dutch Formulation and forged E-way bills, as he could not produce records for the procurement of ENA. The total scam unearthed was Rs. 3.39 crores in GST returns.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of a serious economic offense involving GST evasion and forgery? The petitioner argued that he is innocent, falsely implicated, and neither in a position to tamper with evidence nor flee from justice. He contended that nothing further needs to be recovered from him and his custody is not required, thus no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail. He prayed for the petition to be allowed. The State argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime. They contended that if enlarged on bail at this stage, he may tamper with prosecution evidence and flee from justice, and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the bail application.