Sushil Kumar VS State of Punjab

Sushil Kumar, an Excise and Taxation Officer currently stationed in Mandi Gobindgarh, has filed a petition challenging an order dated 11th September, 2020, which denied his request for anticipatory bail. The petition relates to an FIR (First Information Report) No. 9, registered on 21st August, 2020, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charges listed in the FIR include serious offenses under Sections 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using a forged document as genuine), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC. Additionally, the FIR invokes Sections 7, 7(a), and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which pertain to the receipt of illegal gratification and the misuse of public office for corrupt purposes. Sushil Kumar’s petition is essentially an appeal against the earlier decision to reject his anticipatory bail plea, in light of the ongoing investigation under these serious charges. He seeks protection from arrest, arguing for the grant of anticipatory bail to ensure that his personal liberty is safeguarded while the legal process unfolds.

Sushil Kumar, an Excise and Taxation Officer posted at Mandi Gobindgarh, has filed a petition challenging the order dated September 11, 2020, which rejected his plea for anticipatory bail. The case arises from FIR No. 9, registered on August 21, 2020, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Sections 7, 7(a), and 8) at the Vigilance Bureau Police Station, Phase-1, Mohali. The FIR was lodged following information received by the Vigilance Bureau, alleging that Som Nath, the owner of Sadhu Transport in Phagwara, had been involved in tax evasion with the complicity of officers and officials of the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department. It is claimed that tax evasion occurred by ensuring that no checks or verifications were made on goods being transported to and from Punjab. Large sums of money were reportedly paid monthly as bribes to these officers to facilitate the evasion. Further allegations pointed to Shiv Kumar, a clerk of Som Nath, and Pawan Kumar, a driver allegedly working for some of the Excise and Taxation officers, who were involved in distributing bribe money to officials. The Vigilance Bureau identified mobile numbers associated with these individuals and, after obtaining the necessary permissions, collected technical inputs, including call detail records. These records revealed conversations implicating certain officers and mentioning the bribes being paid or discussed. It was also noted that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, discussions took place regarding paying reduced amounts to the officers. The Vigilance Bureau pursued these call details, leading to the investigation into the accused, including Sushil Kumar.

Sushil Kumar, an Excise and Taxation Officer currently posted at Mandi Gobindgarh, has filed a petition challenging the order dated September 11, 2020, which denied his request for anticipatory bail. This denial relates to FIR No. 9, registered on August 21, 2020, at the Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Phase-1, Mohali. The FIR was filed under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (using a forged document as genuine), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy), as well as Sections 7, 7(a), and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, dealing with bribery and corruption. The case originated from an investigation by the Vigilance Bureau, which received information that Som Nath, the owner of Sadhu Transport in Phagwara, was evading taxes with the assistance of officials from the Excise and Taxation Department of Punjab. The FIR alleges that officials were receiving heavy bribes to ensure that no checks or verifications were conducted on goods being transported to and from Punjab. Key individuals, including Shiv Kumar, a clerk for Som Nath, and Pawan Kumar, a driver for some officers, were allegedly involved in distributing bribe money. The Vigilance Bureau, after obtaining permission from the competent authority, gathered technical inputs and call detail records. These records revealed conversations about the amounts being paid to officers, including discussions of reduced payments due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The investigation also uncovered the use of bogus bills and altered descriptions and values of goods. Twelve officers, including Sushil Kumar, were named in the FIR. It was noted that Pawan Kumar made at least 40 calls to Sushil Kumar’s mobile phone. The FIR states that further investigations are ongoing, and more names may surface. Sushil Kumar, fearing arrest, filed a petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for anticipatory bail, which was rejected. His counsel argued that his name does not appear in the recorded conversations, and simply receiving calls from Pawan Kumar is not sufficient to establish guilt. Furthermore, the reliance on records maintained by Som Nath, Pawan Kumar, and Shiv Kumar, which allegedly detail payments to officers, was questioned by the defense.

Sushil Kumar, an Excise and Taxation Officer posted at Mandi Gobindgarh, filed a petition challenging the order dated September 11, 2020, which denied his request for anticipatory bail. The case stems from FIR No. 9, registered on August 21, 2020, at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Mohali, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B, as well as sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was filed after information surfaced that Som Nath, owner of Sadhu Transport, had been evading taxes in collaboration with officers and officials from the Excise and Taxation Department of Punjab. Allegedly, bribes were paid monthly to ensure no checking or verification of the goods being transported. The investigation revealed that Shiv Kumar, a clerk of Som Nath, and Pawan Kumar, a driver for some of the excise officers, played a role in distributing bribe money. Conversations between these individuals, captured through call detail records over a one-year period, implicated various officers, including the petitioner. The FIR also pointed to the use of fraudulent bills to transport goods and suggested that certain officials provided advance warnings to transporters about potential inspections. Sushil Kumar was named in the FIR, along with 11 other officers, and it was found that Pawan Kumar made at least 40 calls to him. The petitioner moved for anticipatory bail, arguing that his name was not mentioned in the recorded conversations, and the calls made to him did not substantiate any criminal offense. Additionally, his counsel argued that the reliance on registers maintained by Som Nath’s associates, which detailed money given to officials, lacked evidentiary value. On behalf of the State, it was contended that Sushil Kumar was directly implicated in the bribery, with the investigation revealing that he received ₹8,25,000 between October 2017 and July 2020. Further investigations found that trucks detained by him were improperly released with minimal fines and without proper documentation or physical verification. In some cases, fines that should have been imposed by higher officials were instead imposed by Sushil Kumar himself, and certain cash penalties were not deposited in the government treasury. The investigation was ongoing, and the State argued that this provided grounds to deny anticipatory bail.

Sushil Kumar, an Excise and Taxation Officer stationed at Mandi Gobindgarh, has filed a petition challenging the denial of anticipatory bail in an order dated September 11, 2020. The bail was sought in connection with FIR No. 9, filed on August 21, 2020, under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was lodged by the Vigilance Bureau, Mohali, based on information that Som Nath, owner of Sadhu Transport, was evading taxes with the assistance of officials from the Excise and Taxation Department of Punjab. It was alleged that bribes were regularly paid to officials to avoid document checks during the transportation of goods in and out of Punjab. Key individuals like Shiv Kumar, a clerk of Som Nath, and Pawan Kumar, a driver for some Excise officials, were identified as intermediaries who distributed bribes. Mobile numbers were traced, and call records revealed communication between these individuals and certain officers, including the petitioner, Sushil Kumar, who allegedly received around 40 calls from Pawan Kumar.

The FIR stated that false bills were used for goods transportation, and several officers, including Sushil Kumar, were implicated. A register detailing bribe payments was seized, and it indicated that ₹8.25 lakhs were paid to the petitioner between October 2017 and July 2020. Investigations revealed discrepancies in Sushil Kumar’s handling of detained vehicles, with fines imposed inconsistently, vehicles released without proper orders, and some cash penalties not deposited into the government treasury. These actions suggested a nexus between the petitioner and tax evaders, leading to a significant drop in GST collection.

Sushil Kumar’s counsel argued that his name did not appear in any recorded conversations and that the 40 calls made by Pawan Kumar to him did not constitute sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. They further argued that he was only recently posted to Mandi Gobindgarh and had no active role in the department during parts of the period under investigation. Despite these arguments, the State contended that the evidence pointed to his involvement in corruption, emphasizing the necessity of custodial interrogation to fully investigate the case.

Sushil Kumar, an Excise and Taxation Officer currently posted in Mandi Gobindgarh, filed a petition challenging the order dated September 11, 2020, which denied his request for anticipatory bail. The FIR No. 9, dated August 21, 2020, was registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 7, 7(a), and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at the Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Phase-1, Mohali. The FIR arose after the Vigilance Bureau received information about tax evasion involving Som Nath, the owner of Sadhu Transport from Phagwara, who was allegedly colluding with officers and officials from the Excise and Taxation Department of Punjab. The tax evasion was facilitated by a lack of checking or verification of documents and goods transported in and out of Punjab, with substantial bribes being paid to officials to ensure this. It was reported that Pawan Kumar, a driver linked with certain Excise and Taxation officers, and Shiv Kumar, a clerk, were actively involved in distributing the bribe money. The Vigilance Bureau, after obtaining permission from the competent authority, collected technical inputs and call detail records, uncovering conversations between various officials and discussions about bribes, especially during the COVID-19 situation. Names of officers involved, including Sushil Kumar, emerged through these investigations, with Kumar reportedly receiving over 40 calls from Pawan Kumar. Furthermore, a register was seized which allegedly recorded the bribes paid to these officers, including ₹8,25,000 paid to Sushil Kumar from October 2017 to July 2020.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, arguing that his name did not figure in the recorded conversations and that mere phone calls from Pawan Kumar were not sufficient to establish an offense. His counsel further contended that the register maintained by Som Nath and others detailing the bribes had no evidentiary value, and there was no direct accusation of forgery against him. On the contrary, the State argued that Sushil Kumar had been named in the FIR, and during the investigation, irregularities in the handling of detained vehicles by the petitioner were discovered. Trucks were released without physical verification or with minor fines, and in some cases, fines were imposed without proper penalty orders. Additionally, some cash penalties were allegedly not deposited in the government treasury. It was argued that tax evasion under the GST regime had led to a significant drop in state-level tax collection, and this evasion was facilitated by the connivance of transporters, officers, and intermediaries (“passers”). The State further contended that custodial interrogation of Sushil Kumar was necessary to thoroughly investigate the matter and uncover the extent of the tax evasion scheme.

Sushil Kumar’s counsel refuted these allegations, noting that he had not held an active post as Excise and Taxation Officer between January and March 2020 and had only been stationed in Mandi Gobindgarh for two months. Furthermore, the defense claimed that Pawan Kumar was merely a driver occasionally used by the department, and the number of phone calls made to the petitioner was not in itself incriminating.

The case brought to light the challenges posed by the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, which was designed to facilitate free movement of goods by removing barriers and placing responsibility on Excise and Taxation Officers. The evasion of GST, as alleged in this case, had broad implications, potentially allowing input tax credit to be claimed on taxes not paid to the government, thereby affecting the entire supply chain. This case highlighted the need for a deeper probe into tax evasion activities involving intermediaries, transporters, and officials, and its potential impact on the functioning of the GST system.

Sushil Kumar, an Excise and Taxation Officer posted at Mandi Gobindgarh, has filed a petition challenging the order dated September 11, 2020, which rejected his plea for anticipatory bail. The case stems from FIR No. 9, filed on August 21, 2020, under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged documents), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy), as well as Sections 7, 7(a), and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR, registered at the Vigilance Bureau, Phase-1, Mohali, accuses Kumar of involvement in a tax evasion scheme orchestrated by Som Nath, owner of Sadhu Transport, in collaboration with officials from the Excise and Taxation Department of Punjab. The alleged scheme involved evading taxes by bypassing document checks on transported goods in exchange for monthly bribes paid to the department’s officials. It is claimed that Shiv Kumar, a clerk working for Som Nath, and Pawan Kumar, a driver linked to the Excise Department, were responsible for distributing bribes. Technical surveillance, including call detail records, revealed conversations about bribe payments to certain officers, including discussions about reduced bribes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The FIR names 12 officers, including Sushil Kumar, and claims that Pawan Kumar made 40 calls to him. Further investigation revealed a register maintained by Som Nath’s employees, detailing bribe payments to officers, including an alleged sum of ₹8,25,000 paid to Sushil Kumar between October 2017 and July 2020. The state argues that Sushil Kumar failed to enforce tax checks properly, allowing trucks to pass with minor fines and, in some cases, without following statutory procedures. The investigation has uncovered instances of forgery in goods transportation bills, discrepancies in penalty collections, and missing records of detained vehicles. The state’s counsel contends that custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover the full scope of the tax evasion network, which threatens the integrity of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) system.

Sushil Kumar’s counsel refutes these claims, arguing that his name does not appear in the recorded conversations and that the mere fact of receiving phone calls from Pawan Kumar does not constitute evidence of wrongdoing. It is also argued that the register detailing the bribes lacks evidentiary value and that no specific forgeries are directly attributed to the petitioner. Moreover, the defense asserts that Sushil Kumar was not in an active role as Excise and Taxation Officer during certain periods and had only recently been posted to Mandi Gobindgarh. Despite these arguments, the state emphasizes the seriousness of the allegations, the ongoing nature of the investigation, and the broader implications of the tax evasion scheme for the GST system. The court must weigh these factors in deciding whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law