Paritosh Kumar Singh and others VS Senior Intelligence Officer

The document pertains to the second application submitted by the applicants under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This section of the code deals with the provision for bail, particularly for the grant of regular bail. The applicants in this case have been in custody since January 25, 2021, and are seeking release on bail through this application. The details of the crime, the arguments presented by the applicants, the response from the prosecution, and the previous history of bail applications are likely discussed in the full text to justify whether or not the applicants should be granted bail.

credits (ITC). It is further submitted that applicants are in jail since 25.1.2021 and charge sheet has already been filed, trial is likely to take some time, therefore, applicants may be enlarged on bail. He would further submit that main accused Manoj Shah has been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.8.2021 passed in MCRC No.6014/2021 and case of applicants is on better footing than that of Manoj Shah. Therefore, on the ground of parity, applicants may be released on bail.

4. Per contra, Mr. Manoj Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the non-applicant/Department would submit that investigation was carried out on the basis of GST Intelligence report. It revealed that M/s Manoj Enterprises was a non-existent firm and it was floated for the purpose of availing illegal ITC. Further, it revealed that the applicants have formed various fake firms and have taken illegal benefit of ITC to the tune of Rs.258 Crore by showing bogus transactions. He would submit that applicants are the main perpetrators of the crime and they have caused huge loss to the Government ex-chequer, therefore, they are not entitled to be released on bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. Considering the facts that applicants are in jail since 25.1.2021, charge sheet has already been filed and trial is likely to take some time, also considering that main accused Manoj Shah has been released on bail, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this Court is inclined to release applicants on bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and applicants are directed to be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. They shall also abide by the following conditions: (i) They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (ii) They shall not influence any of the witnesses of the prosecution or tamper with the evidence in any manner. (iii) They shall not leave the State of Chhattisgarh without prior permission of the trial Court.

The case revolves around a bail application submitted on behalf of the applicants under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicants have been in custody since January 25, 2021, in connection with Crime/DDGI Case No.124/2020-21 registered with the Directorate of GST Intelligence, GST, Raipur, for offenses punishable under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘the GST Act’).

According to the non-applicant Department, the investigation revealed that M/s Manoj Enterprises, Raipur, a supposedly non-existent firm, had never made any purchases from any entity. It was further uncovered that the applicants had established forged firms across multiple states and availed illegal input tax credits, resulting in a loss of approximately Rs. 258 Crore to the government exchequer during the financial years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21. The applicants were arrested on January 25, 2021, and a complaint case was filed on March 25, 2021, before the Magistrate’s Court.

The applicants’ counsel argued that the non-applicant Department failed to provide any substantial evidence connecting the applicants with the alleged offense. He pointed out that the documents submitted along with the complaint were merely procedural and did not prove the applicants’ involvement in the illegal activities. The delay in framing charges and the extended period of incarceration were also cited as reasons to grant bail, backed by a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.164-165/2022 dated February 1, 2022.

However, the counsel for the non-applicant Department countered these arguments, asserting that the applicants had indeed created fake firms, causing significant financial losses to the government. He emphasized that voluminous documents were presented before the lower court, indicating the applicants’ prima facie involvement in the offense. Additionally, he referenced Applicant No.1’s admission, recorded under Section 70 of the GST Act, to availing input tax credits through issuing invoices.

The opposition counsel also highlighted ongoing investigations by the DDGI, Mumbai Zonal Unit, into the firms involved, most of which are located in Maharashtra. He emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and the substantial evidence against the applicants, urging the court to reject the bail application.

In summary, the case involves the applicants’ request for bail amidst allegations of involvement in creating fake firms and defrauding the government through illegal input tax credit claims. The applicants argue for bail due to lack of substantial evidence and delays in the legal process, while the non-applicant Department presents voluminous documents and admissions by the applicants as evidence of their involvement in the offense.

The case involves a second application for the grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on behalf of the applicants who have been in custody since January 25, 2021, in connection with a Crime/DDGI Case registered with the Directorate of GST Intelligence, GST, Raipur. The applicants are accused of offenses punishable under Section 132 (1) (b) (c) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

According to the case presented by the non-applicant Department, investigations revealed that M/s Manoj Enterprises, Raipur, the purported firm, had never made any purchases from any entity and was non-existent at its registered address. Further investigations uncovered that the applicants had allegedly formed forged firms across multiple states, availing illegal benefits of input tax credits, causing an approximate loss of Rs. 258 Crore to the government exchequer during the financial years 2018-19, 2019-20, & 2020-21. The applicants were arrested on January 25, 2021, and a complaint case was filed before the Magistrate’s Court on March 25, 2021.

Mr. B.P. Sharma, counsel for the applicants, argued that the Department had not provided any document connecting the applicants with the alleged offense, contending that the documents submitted along with the complaint were procedural in nature and did not prove the applicants’ involvement. He emphasized the applicants’ prolonged incarceration without framed charges and cited a Supreme Court decision in support of his argument.

On the contrary, Mr. Maneesh Sharma, counsel for the Department, countered these arguments, stating that the applicants had allegedly created fake firms causing significant losses to the government exchequer. He pointed out the voluminous documents submitted before the lower court indicating the prima facie involvement of the applicants in the offense. He highlighted statements made by the applicants during the investigation, admission of availing input tax credits through issued invoices, and ongoing investigations by the DDGI Mumbai Zonal Unit against the beneficiary firms.

After hearing both parties and examining the documents, the court noted that the first bail application had been rejected on merits on January 18, 2022, when the investigation was incomplete. However, considering the prolonged detention of the applicants and the maximum sentence applicable under the GST Act, the court emphasized that they cannot be held indefinitely pending trial. It also observed that most witnesses belonged to the government department. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the court underscored the significance of considering the nature of the economic offenses charged against the accused.

The case pertains to a second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the applicants who have been in custody since January 25, 2021, in connection with Crime/DDGI Case No. 124/2020-21 registered at the Directorate of GST Intelligence, GST, Raipur, for offenses punishable under Section 132 (1) (b) (c) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act).

The Department alleges that M/s Manoj Enterprises, Raipur, is a non-existent firm and that the applicants created forged firms in several states, availing illegal input tax credits and causing a loss of approximately Rs. 258 Crore to the government exchequer during the financial years 2018-19, 2019-20, & 2020-21. The applicants were arrested on January 25, 2021, and a complaint case was filed on March 25, 2021. The first bail application was rejected on August 13, 2021.

The counsel for the applicants argues that the Department has not provided any substantial evidence connecting the applicants to the alleged offense. He highlights the delay in trial proceedings and cites a Supreme Court decision in support of his contention.

On the other hand, the counsel for the Department opposes the bail application, stating that voluminous documents have been submitted, showing the prima facie involvement of the applicants. He mentions that one of the applicants admitted to availing input tax credits through invoices. He also notes that the investigation is complete.

The Court considers the arguments and documents presented by both parties. While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, the Court also takes into account the prolonged detention of the applicants without charges being framed. It cites Supreme Court decisions where bail was granted in similar cases.

Based on the above considerations and legal precedents, the Court grants bail to the applicants, imposing stringent conditions to address concerns raised by the Department.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: