Mrs.B.Banu Bee VS State Of Karnataka

The petitioner, identified as Accused No. 2, has filed the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), seeking anticipatory bail in anticipation of her arrest in connection with a criminal case. This petition arises from an ongoing investigation under O.R. No. 32/2018-19, which has been registered by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru South Commissionerate, Bengaluru.

The essence of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is to protect individuals from arrest in cases where they have reason to believe that they might be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offense. The petitioner has approached the court pre-emptively to secure her release in case of an arrest, suggesting that she has a legitimate fear of detention.

The legal basis for this petition hinges on various factors such as the nature of the accusations against her, the potential evidence that may or may not implicate her in the case, her conduct throughout the investigation, and whether her detention would serve any larger purpose in the investigation. In this context, the court will assess whether the petitioner is cooperating with the investigation and whether she poses any threat of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or fleeing from the jurisdiction of the court.

Typically, in cases involving tax-related offenses, such as the one registered by the Central Tax Commissionerate, allegations can range from fraudulent activity in tax filings, evasion of taxes, non-compliance with statutory tax obligations, or other regulatory offenses. The court will take into account the gravity of the accusations and the extent of the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the matter.

In such petitions, the accused often seeks protection against arrest, arguing that their detention is not essential to the investigation. Instead, they might commit to cooperating with the authorities, appearing for interrogation when summoned, and complying with any conditions imposed by the court. The court, before granting anticipatory bail, would weigh these considerations carefully. If granted, the anticipatory bail would allow the petitioner to remain free, provided she meets the conditions set forth by the court, such as regular attendance in court, non-interference with the investigation, or submitting her passport to prevent travel abroad.

If anticipatory bail is not granted, the petitioner may face immediate arrest upon the discretion of the investigating authorities. Hence, the primary argument often put forth by the petitioner in such cases is that her arrest is unnecessary and would serve only to humiliate or unduly harass her, especially if she is otherwise willing to comply with the investigation process.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is Accused No. 2, under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with O.R.No.32/2018-19. This case was registered by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru South Commissionerate, Bengaluru. The petitioner is facing legal action and is apprehensive about her arrest, which led her to file the anticipatory bail petition.

The case was taken up out of its usual order, based on a request made by the petitioner’s counsel. The petitioner’s counsel argued that there is an urgent need to resolve this matter because the petitioner’s daughter is scheduled to appear for the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET), a critical medical entrance exam, and requires regular attendance at tuition classes. Since the petitioner is responsible for transporting her daughter to these classes, she is concerned that stepping out of her house may lead to her immediate arrest by the authorities. This creates a practical difficulty, and the petitioner fears the police may detain her before the matter is resolved. Hence, her need for anticipatory bail is based not just on legal grounds but also on family responsibilities and the education of her daughter.

Upon hearing the petition, the learned counsel representing the petitioner argued for the need for anticipatory bail, emphasizing the petitioner’s responsibility as a mother and the potential disruption to her daughter’s education if she were to be arrested. The learned High Court Government Pleader, representing the respondent-State, was also present to contest the petitioner’s application for bail.

In brief, the facts of the case indicate that Accused No.1 is the proprietor of several shell companies, which are presumably involved in fraudulent or illegal activities, and Accused No.2, the petitioner in this case, is associated with these shell companies. Although the specific role of the petitioner in these companies is yet to be clarified in this summary, it is clear that she is entangled in a larger investigation concerning the shell firms, which is why the authorities are seeking to arrest her.

The petitioner’s request for anticipatory bail is built around the potential threat of arrest under this ongoing investigation, and her legal team has raised these concerns to seek relief from the court in anticipation of any legal actions that may disrupt her daily responsibilities. The High Court is expected to consider not just the legal standing of her case but also the humanitarian aspects concerning her daughter’s education.

In conclusion, the case presents both legal and personal dimensions. Legally, the petitioner is being sought for arrest in connection with alleged fraudulent activities tied to shell companies, but personally, she seeks the court’s intervention to avoid an arrest that would prevent her from caring for her daughter’s educational needs. The final decision of the court will depend on the balance between these two considerations.

The present petition is filed by the petitioner, who is also Accused No. 2, seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in case she is arrested in connection with O.R.No.32/2018-19. This case was registered by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru South Commissionerate. The petitioner fears arrest due to ongoing proceedings and investigation related to the case.

The matter has been heard out of turn at the petitioner’s request because of personal circumstances. The petitioner’s daughter is preparing to appear for the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) and needs to attend tuition classes, for which the petitioner must accompany her. The petitioner is concerned that leaving her home might lead to her immediate arrest by the police.

Upon hearing the submissions, the Court noted the basic facts of the case. The main allegation is that Accused No. 1 is the proprietor of several shell firms, and the petitioner (Accused No. 2) is a partner in one such firm. The prosecution alleges that these shell companies have been involved in issuing fake tax invoices without the actual supply of goods. The firm with which the petitioner is associated, M/S. Basha Enterprises, and several other companies allegedly colluded to carry out fraudulent activities. The investigation has revealed that the accused firms have evaded Goods and Services Tax (GST) totaling ₹57.60 crores, resulting in significant financial loss to the government.

The petitioner’s defense, presented by her counsel, argues that she is not involved in the fraudulent transactions. The counsel emphasized that, even if an offense under the GST Act is made out, the maximum punishment is five years of imprisonment. Additionally, the alleged offense is compoundable under Section 138 of the GST Act upon payment of dues to the Commissioner. The counsel also argued that there was no irregularity or loss of revenue caused to the State or Central Government by the petitioner’s actions.

In light of these arguments, the Court must consider the anticipatory bail plea. The petitioner seeks protection from arrest, arguing that her role in the firm does not warrant such drastic action, particularly given the personal circumstances involving her daughter’s educational needs. The case remains under investigation, but the Court must determine whether the anticipatory bail should be granted to allow the petitioner to continue her responsibilities without fear of immediate arrest.

The petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner, who is Accused No. 2, seeking anticipatory bail due to concerns over a potential arrest related to a case registered as O.R.No.32/2018-19 by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru South Commissionerate.

The request for an expedited hearing was made by the petitioner’s counsel on the grounds that the petitioner’s daughter is preparing for the NEET exam and requires transportation to tuition classes. The counsel argued that if the petitioner leaves her house, she risks arrest by the police, which would disrupt her ability to support her daughter.

The court has heard arguments from both the petitioner’s counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader representing the State. The essence of the case involves allegations against Accused No. 1, the proprietor of numerous shell firms, and Accused No. 2, the partner in these ventures. The accusation is that these firms were involved in diverting and issuing tax invoices without the actual supply of goods. This was allegedly done in collusion with M/S Basha Enterprises and other shell companies, resulting in a significant GST evasion amounting to Rs. 57.60 Crores, causing a loss to the government.

The petitioner’s counsel contends that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged illegal transactions and asserts that under the GST Act, the maximum penalty for such offenses is imprisonment for up to five years. Additionally, the counsel noted that Section 138 of the GST Act allows for the offense to be compounded before the Commissioner upon payment. The counsel further argued that no irregularities or revenue losses have occurred as they have made GST payments through invoices, and there has been no involvement in obtaining loans or raising funds from banks. Emphasizing that the offenses are neither punishable by death nor life imprisonment, the counsel offered to comply with any bail conditions and provide sureties. On these grounds, the petitioner’s counsel requested that the court grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

The Standing Counsel representing the respondent argued against the petitioner’s claims by presenting detailed objections. He emphasized that upon reviewing the entire situation, it is evident that fake invoices were issued despite there being no actual movement of goods. This fraudulent activity has resulted in a substantial financial loss to the State, amounting to Rs. 57.60 Crores. The Counsel further noted that the investigation into this matter is still ongoing. There is a concern that the petitioner or accused might not fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation, potentially jeopardizing the integrity of the prosecution’s evidence. In light of these serious issues, the Standing Counsel requested the court to reject the petition.

The Standing Counsel representing the respondent argued against the petitioner’s claims by presenting detailed objections. He emphasized that upon reviewing the entire situation, it is evident that fake invoices were issued despite there being no actual movement of goods. This fraudulent activity has resulted in a substantial financial loss to the State, amounting to Rs. 57.60 Crores. The Counsel further noted that the investigation into this matter is still ongoing. There is a concern that the petitioner or accused might not fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation, potentially jeopardizing the integrity of the prosecution’s evidence. In light of these serious issues, the Standing Counsel requested the court to reject the petition.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law