Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 788 (RAJ)

Mohammed Ali Akram Khan v. Union of India

2023-04-06

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2023
ORDER : 1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of complaint No. DGGI/INV/GST/227/2022-GR- D-O/O ADG-DGGI-ZU-JAIPUR for the offence(s) under Sections 132 (1) (b), (f), (h), (j) & (l) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case. He is behind the bars since 03.08.2022. Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that offence against the petitioner is triable by Magistrate, compoundable and having maximum punishment of 5 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that before arrest, no summon or demand notice was given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Mohammad Shadab Kadri is kingpin in this case. Petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Conclusion of trial may take long time. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Dipanshu Gupta v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3399/2022 decided on 13.04.2022; (2) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. in Miscellaneous Application No. 1849/2021 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191/2021 decided on 11.07.2022; (3) Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 742/2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5598/2020) decided on 27.11.2020; (4) Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar in Criminal Appeal No. 1277/2014 decided on 02.07.2014; (5) Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana v. State in Criminal Petition No. 2419/2020 decided on 11.06.2020; (6) Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India in SLP (Crl.) No. 10319/2022 decided on 05.12.2022; (7) Rakesh Kumar Khandelwal v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12440/2019 decided on 14.10.2019; (8) Hemant Kumar Singhal v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8676/2020 decided on 04.11.2020; (9) Anil Kumar Gupta v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15605/2020 decided on 19.02.2021; (10) Ashwani Kumar Bagpatiya @ golu v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 465/2021 decided on 05.03.2021; (11) Dananjay Singh v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18825/2021 decided on 05.02.2022; (12) Naresh Chandra Jajra v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15605/2020 decided on 19.02.2021; (10) Ashwani Kumar Bagpatiya @ golu v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 465/2021 decided on 05.03.2021; (11) Dananjay Singh v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18825/2021 decided on 05.02.2022; (12) Naresh Chandra Jajra v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1914/2022 decided on 25.02.2022; (13) Sanjeev Jain v. Union of India in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3608/2021 decided on 31.05.2021; (14) Gaurav Kumar Aanchaliya v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3624/2019 decided on 13.05.2019; (15) Chandu @ Chandra Prakash v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2381/2021 decided on 16.02.2021; (16) Pradeep Kumar Bansal v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12093/2020 decided on 04.11.2020; (17) Saurabh Kumar Jain v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2695/2021 decided on 16.08.2021 (18) Khem Chand Thathera v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13823/2022 decided on 03.01.2023; (19) Vishesh Sahal v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13658/2022 decided on 06.01.2023; (20) Vikas Bojoria v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17349/2022 decided on 06.01.2023; (21) Ronak Kumar Jain v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16083/2021 decided on 04.10.2021; (22) Pridhi Jain v. State in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 742/2020 decided on 20.01.2020 and (23) Pramod Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha in BLAPL No. 4125/2020 decided on 23.12.2020. 4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioner and co-accused Mohammad Shadab Kadri had made seven fake firms and took Rs.88,33,81,971/- as input tax credit benefit. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent also submitted that case of Dananjay Singh is not similar to the petitioner because Dananjay Singh had not made any fake firms. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent also submitted that petitioner has committed economic offence against the nation. Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncement has observed that economic offence should not be dealt as a general offence and also submitted that in the case of Vinay Kant Ameta, Hon'ble Apex Court had directed him to deposit Rs.200 Crores for granting bail. Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncement has observed that economic offence should not be dealt as a general offence and also submitted that in the case of Vinay Kant Ameta, Hon'ble Apex Court had directed him to deposit Rs.200 Crores for granting bail. So, if this court directs the petitioner to deposit loss of input tax credit of nearing Rs.88.33 Crores, then, respondent shall not have any objection for granting bail to the petitioner otherwise the bail filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. in Miscellaneous Application No. 1849/2021 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191/2021; (2) Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466 ; (3) Yashik Jindal v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14792/2022 decided on 16.12.2022; (4) Lalit Goyal v. Union Of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3509/2022 decided on 26.08.2022; (5) Lalit Goyal v. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13042/2021 decided on 07.09.2021; (6) Dinesh Bhabootmal Salecha v. The Directorate of Revenue & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 308/2023 decided on 13.01.2023; (7) Basudev Mittal v. Union of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8128/2022 decided on 12.12.2022; (8) Basudev Mittal v. Union of India in MCRC No. 3919/2022 decided on 15.07.2022; (9) Sandeep Goyal v. Union of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1803/2020 decided on 17.04.2020; (10) Sandeep Goyal v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. III Bail Application No. 1521/2020 decided on 05.02.2020; (11) Vinay Kant Ameta v. Union of India in Criminal Appeal No. 60/2022 (SLP (Crl.) No. 9564/2021) decided on 10.01.2022 and (12) Gaurav Kakkar v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17536/2022 decided on 11.01.2023. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. 7. It is an admitted position that petitioner had evaded the tax and got the benefit of input tax credit of nearing Rs.88.33 Crores. Bail Application No. 17536/2022 decided on 11.01.2023. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. 7. It is an admitted position that petitioner had evaded the tax and got the benefit of input tax credit of nearing Rs.88.33 Crores. Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncement observed that economic offender should not be dealt as a general offender and in circumstances while granting bail to Vinay Kant Ameta directed him to deposit Rs.200 Crores. 8. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail with a condition to deposit Rs.5 Crores by the petitioner before the respondent Department 'under protest'. 9. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Shri Mohammed Ali Akram Khan Son Of Mohammed Iqbal Khan be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he will appear before the trial court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 10. Trial court is directed to take the receipt with regard to deposition of Rs.5 Crores by the petitioner on record before attesting his bail bonds.