Arvindkumar Munka VS Union of India

Sanjay Kumar Pandit, Nagendra Kumar Dubey alias Sandip Dubey, and Mr. Vijay Rajpuriya, along with others, are accused of involvement in a scheme where they allegedly issued GST invoices without actually supplying goods to the buyers, operating on a commission basis. This purported fraudulent activity has resulted in an estimated loss exceeding 98 crores.

The petitioner, presumably one of the accused individuals, was arrested and presented before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Alipore on June 6, 2019. The magistrate denied bail, remanding the petitioner to judicial custody despite their cooperation with the investigating agency prior to arrest. Subsequently, an application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking bail was filed before the Sessions Judge of Alipore. However, on August 20, 2019, the bail application was rejected. The decision was based on the serious nature of the alleged unlawful acts revealed in the investigating agency’s final report. Concerns were also raised about the potential to influence witnesses, destroy evidence, or evade further investigation and trial processes.

Challenging the bail rejection, the petitioner has appealed on several grounds. These include claims that the lower courts erred by not granting bail within the mandated 61-day period under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. They also argue that the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not follow directives from the Supreme Court cases of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anrs (2014) and Rini Johar & Anrs vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (2016), which emphasize the need for cautious application of arrest powers. Additionally, it is contended that the offense under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 is bailable and that the proceedings are premature without prior sanction from the Commissioner to file a charge sheet.

In essence, the case revolves around allegations of a significant financial fraud involving GST invoices, with legal proceedings centering on the denial of bail amidst claims of procedural irregularities and misapplication of bail principles by the lower courts.

Sanjay Kumar Pandit, Nagendra Kumar Dubey alias Sandip Dubey, and Mr. Vijay Rajpuriya, along with others, are accused of issuing GST invoices without actually supplying goods, allegedly causing a loss exceeding 98 crores. Sanjay Kumar Pandit was arrested and brought before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore on June 6, 2019. Despite his cooperation with the investigating agency prior to arrest, his bail plea was rejected on the same day, and subsequently again on August 20, 2019, by the Sessions Judge Alipore, citing the serious nature of the alleged offense and concerns about tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.

Challenging these decisions, Sanjay Kumar Pandit filed an application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking bail, arguing that the lower courts erred in not granting him bail within 61 days as per Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code. His counsel, Mr. Sekhar Basu, a Senior Advocate, contended that the arrest seemed malicious since Pandit had been cooperating with the authorities and was allegedly coerced into signing blank documents during the investigation. Basu further argued that the offenses under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, for which Pandit is charged, are bailable and should not require prolonged detention.

Additionally, Basu pointed out procedural lapses, arguing that the prosecution lacked the necessary sanction from the Commissioner as mandated by Section 134 of the CGST Act, which makes the entire proceeding unlawful. He cited precedents such as Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Rini Johar v. State of Madhyapradesh, emphasizing the need for adherence to due process and guidelines regarding arrests and bail.

In summary, Pandit’s application for bail revolves around the alleged violations of his rights under the Cr.P.C. and the CGST Act, questioning the legality of his detention and the procedural integrity of the prosecution’s case against him.

Court of India recognized that under trials languish in jails for years awaiting trial
Simply put, the case involves allegations against Sanjay Kumar Pandit, Nagendra Kumar Dubey alias Sandip Dubey, and Mr. Vijay Rajpuriya, among others, for issuing GST invoices without actual supply of goods, resulting in a purported loss exceeding 98 crores. The petitioner, Mr. Pandit, was arrested and initially denied bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Alipore on June 6, 2019. Subsequent bail pleas before the Sessions Judge were also rejected on August 20, 2019, citing the severity of the alleged offenses and concerns over witness tampering and evidence destruction.

Challenging these denials, Mr. Pandit petitioned under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, contending that his arrest lacked adherence to Supreme Court directives on arrest procedures and that the offenses under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, should warrant bail. His counsel, Mr. Sekhar Basu, argued that Mr. Pandit cooperated with investigators until his arrest, suggesting a malicious intent behind the arrest due to coercion into signing blank documents. Mr. Pandit’s custody since August 6, 2019, was deemed unwarranted, emphasizing he holds no managerial role in the businesses implicated and was not issued a notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act.

Mr. Basu further contended that the prosecution lacked essential sanction from the Commissioner under Section 134 of the CGST Act, rendering the entire case unsustainable. He raised several pivotal questions in the bail application, including whether the lower courts erred in denying bail after the statutory 61-day period, whether precedents regarding arrest directives were overlooked, and whether the offenses cited were indeed bailable.

The argument pivoted on legal interpretations of Section 167 of the CrPC, which allows for a maximum of 15 days of police custody under magistrate orders and up to 90 days for serious offenses, with Mr. Basu citing legal precedents such as the Hussainara Khatoon case to support his stance on judicial custody norms.

In essence, Mr. Pandit’s bail plea challenges the procedural correctness of his arrest, the classification of the offenses under the CGST Act, and the adherence to statutory bail provisions, presenting a comprehensive legal defense against his continued detention pending trial.

Sanjay Kumar Pandit, Nagendra Kumar Dubey alias Sandip Dubey, and Mr. Vijay Rajpuriya, along with others, are accused of orchestrating a fraudulent scheme involving issuance of GST invoices without actual supply of goods, allegedly causing a significant financial loss of over 98 crores.

Sanjay Kumar Pandit, one of the accused, was arrested and brought before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, on June 6, 2019. His bail requests were denied both by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and subsequently by the Sessions Judge, citing the serious nature of the alleged offenses, the potential to influence witnesses, and the risk of tampering with evidence.

Challenging these decisions, Sanjay Kumar Pandit filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, arguing several grounds. His defense, led by Senior Advocate Mr. Sekhar Basu, contended that the authorities had erred in not releasing him within the mandated 60-day period under Section 167 of the CrPC. They also argued that the arrest lacked adherence to the Supreme Court’s directives on arrest procedures as established in cases like Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Rini Johar v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

Furthermore, the defense asserted that the offenses under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, alleged against Sanjay Kumar Pandit, were bailable and that the prosecution had proceeded without proper sanction from the Commissioner under Section 134 of the CGST Act. They highlighted procedural lapses and emphasized that Sanjay Kumar Pandit was not directly responsible for managing any business entity implicated in the fraud.

Mr. Sekhar Basu also pointed out that the magistrate had exceeded permissible detention periods without valid grounds, referencing legal precedents such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar and U.O.I. through C.B.I. v. Nirala Yadav @ Raja Ram. These cases underscored the statutory right to bail if charge sheets were not filed within the prescribed time limits.

In summary, the defense contended that Sanjay Kumar Pandit was unlawfully detained beyond statutory limits, and procedural errors and lack of proper sanctions invalidated the prosecution’s case. The defense’s arguments centered on securing Sanjay Kumar Pandit’s release on bail pending trial, invoking fundamental rights and procedural safeguards enshrined in Indian law.