Vishnu Pratap VS State of U.P

The court heard from Sri Shubham Agarwal, the counsel for the applicant, and Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, the Additional Government Advocate, and reviewed the case records. The applicant seeks bail in connection with Case Crime No. 374 of 2022, which involves charges under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the U.P. and Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The case was registered at Police Station Kwarsi, District Aligarh.

The FIR was lodged by the Deputy Commissioner of the Special Investigation Branch of the Commercial Tax Department, following a raid by tax officers. The raid revealed that the accused, including the applicant and co-accused Harshit Gupta, Deep Agarwal, Suman Saini, among others, allegedly engaged in fraudulent input tax credit claims through fictitious documents and transactions. The fraudulent claims amounted to Rs. 4,43,88,684.65, resulting in tax evasion.

The applicant, who has no prior criminal history, has been in jail since April 29, 2022. In an affidavit supporting the bail application, the applicant asserts his innocence and claims to have been falsely implicated. He states that he has no intent or ability to tamper with evidence and pledges not to misuse bail if granted, promising full cooperation with the investigation.

The applicant’s counsel argued that the primary allegation is that he, along with the other accused, evaded GST payments. The counsel emphasized the applicant’s clean criminal record and cooperative stance, advocating for his release on bail under these considerations.

The court heard arguments from Sri Shubham Agarwal, representing the applicant, and Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, the Additional Government Advocate, regarding a bail application for the applicant in Case Crime No. 374 of 2022. The case, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the U.P. and Central Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017, at Police Station Kwarsi, Aligarh, involves allegations of fraudulent input tax credit claims and tax evasion amounting to Rs.4,43,88,684.65.

An FIR lodged by the Deputy Commissioner of the Special Investigation Branch, Commercial Tax, Aligarh, accused the applicant and others of creating fictitious documents to claim wrongful input tax credit. The applicant, who has been in jail since April 29, 2022, claims innocence, asserts a lack of prior criminal history, and argues there is no risk of tampering with evidence. The applicant also promises to cooperate with the investigation if granted bail.

The applicant’s counsel, Sri Shubham Agarwal, argues that the primary charge against the applicant is evading GST, punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment and a fine under Section 132 (1) (l) (II) of the CGST Act. He emphasizes that under Sections 132 (4) and (5) of the CGST Act, the alleged offence is non-cognizable and bailable. Additionally, he cites a precedent from the Allahabad High Court, where anticipatory bail was granted in a similar case involving GST evasion exceeding Rs.100 crores.

The Additional Government Advocate opposed the bail request but did not contest the specific legal points raised by the applicant’s counsel.

In the case presented, the applicant, Vishnu Pratap, sought bail in Case Crime No. 374 of 2022 under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The charges involved allegations of making wrongful claims of input tax credit using fictitious documents, leading to tax evasion amounting to Rs. 4,43,88,684.65. The case was registered following an FIR lodged by the Deputy Commissioner, Special Investigation Branch, Commercial Tax, Aligarh.

The applicant’s counsel, Sri Shubham Agarwal, argued that Vishnu Pratap is innocent, has been falsely implicated, and has no prior criminal history. He has been in jail since April 29, 2022. The counsel highlighted that the alleged offense under Section 132 (1) (l) (II) of the CGST Act carries a maximum imprisonment of three years and is bailable. The counsel also referenced a precedent set by the Allahabad High Court in Nitin Verma vs. State of U.P., where anticipatory bail was granted in a case involving a much larger sum of evaded GST.

The Additional Government Advocate opposed the bail application but could not effectively counter the key points raised by the applicant’s counsel. Considering the facts, the court noted that the principal offense involves a sum less than Rs. 500 lakhs, is bailable, and the applicant has no prior criminal history. Thus, the court granted bail to Vishnu Pratap, imposing conditions that he should not tamper with evidence or influence any witnesses during the trial.

The court heard arguments from Sri Shubham Agarwal, counsel for the applicant Vishnu Pratap, and Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, Additional Government Advocate. The applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 374 of 2022, involving charges under various sections of the IPC and the U.P. and Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The case stems from an FIR lodged by the Deputy Commissioner of the Special Investigation Branch, Commercial Tax, following a raid that uncovered alleged fraudulent input tax credit claims amounting to Rs.4,43,88,684.65 by the applicant and other accused.

The applicant, claiming innocence, has been in jail since April 29, 2022, and asserts no criminal history, arguing there is no risk of tampering with evidence and pledging to cooperate fully with the investigation. The principal charge is evasion of GST under Section 132(1)(l)(II) of the CGST Act, which is bailable and non-cognizable, with a maximum imprisonment of three years. The counsel for the applicant cited a precedent where anticipatory bail was granted in a more severe GST evasion case.

The Additional Government Advocate opposed the bail but could not refute the key arguments. Considering the facts, the court noted that the primary offense carries a maximum sentence of three years and is bailable, and that the applicant has no prior criminal record. Thus, the court decided to grant bail.

The applicant Vishnu Pratap is to be released on bail with conditions: not tampering with evidence, not influencing witnesses, appearing in court as required, and avoiding any actions that might discourage witnesses from testifying. Any breach of these conditions allows the prosecution to seek bail cancellation.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: