Case Title | Vipin Sharma Vs Sate of Andhra Pradesh |
Section | 132(1)(i) |
Court | Andhra Pradesh High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Subba Reddy Satti |
Citation | 2022 (7) GSTPanacea 136 HC Andhra Pradesh Criminal Petition No. 4451 of 2022 |
Judgement Date | 19-July-2022 |
Counsel for Petitioner | Mr Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu Mr A.S.C.Bose |
Counsel for Respondents | Mr T.M.K.Chaitanya |
Decision | In favour of GST Department |
The Andhra Pradesh High Court of Justice Subba Reddy Satti has held that Application for pre-arrest bail cannot withstand in grave socio-economic offence where accused is aware that he can obtain protection by the order of court.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner is a chartered accountant by profession and had connived, conspired and participated with other accused to siphon off government grant money to the tune of more than 371 crores under the Central Govt scheme of skill development. The petitioner was made accused under sections 166,167,418,420,465,468,471, 409,209,109 read with 120b of India Penal Code 1860 read with section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation (APSSDC) established skill development centers in six (6) different clusters at the inception at the cost of Rs 546,84,18,908/- with M/s SIEMENS and Design Tech jointly and a Memorandum of Understanding was signed to provide training software development including various sub modules designed for high end software for advance manufacturing CAD/CAM. MoU did not carried any sub-contracting clause in it but M/s SIEMENS and Design Tech sub-contracted large part of its work to M/s Skiller Enterprises Pvt Ltd, New Delhi. Design tech claimed royalty and subscription payments to Skiller since they had developed the software. On the other hand on confrontation Skiller claimed that no technical work has been sub-contracted and training software development including various sub modules supplied were technical material only, payment of royalty and subscription have been wrongly mentioned in the invoices. On in-depth scrutiny into records by A.D.G.G.I revealed that technical material was purchased by Skiller from 5 different companies at Mumbai and New Delhi which were shell/defunct companies formed by the other co-accused for issuing invoices without providing any services. In two (2) out of five (5) companies, accused CA’s wife was the Director.
Counsel for respondent called for the attention of Hon. Court towards avoidance of petitioner for appearance before the Investigation officer during crucial period, though he appeared before the investigating agency on 22.12.2021 and 18.04.2022. He emphasised that much information such as modus operandi and indulgence in creating fake invoices etc was within exclusive knowledge of the petitioner. He requested for custodial interrogation of petitioner and dismissal of bail application.
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, Hon. Court cited findings of Hon Supreme Court in P.Chidambaram Vs Directorate of Enforcement to make it clear that granting anticipatory bail to accused will frustrate the investigating agency in interrogation of accused, collecting useful information and unearthing material which might have been concealed. Bail might hamper effective investigation.
Keeping in view the gravity of crime, it being socio-economic offence Hon Court dismissed pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
Application for pre-arrest bail cannot withstand in grave socio-economic offence where accused knows that he can obtain protection by the order of court.
DOWNLOAD PDF
VIPIN SHARMA
For Reference Visit:
Andhra Pradesh Court