Allowed

Vishnu Pratap v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2022BAIL/34917/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was filed by Vishnu Pratap challenging his detention in a case involving GST evasion and IPC offences. The court noted the principal offence carried a maximum punishment of three years and was bailable, allowing release on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties in like amount.

Vishnu Pratap Vs State of U.P. and Another — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34917 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vishnu Pratap Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanyukta Singh,Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Shubham Agarwal, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

2.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 374 of 2022 of 2022, under Sections 420, 424, 467, 468, 120-B IPC and Sections 122 and 132 of the U.P. and Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, Police Station Kwarsi, District Aligarh.

¶7

3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged against four named accused persons, including the applicant and some other unknown persons and some firms by the Deputy Commissioner, Special Investigation Branch, Commercial Tax, Range-A, Aligarh, alleging that a team of officers of Commercial Tax Department conducted a raid and from the documents recovered, it transpired that the accused persons were involved in making wrong claims of input tax credit through fictitious documents and transactions. It is alleged that the applicant and co-accused persons Harshit Gupta, Deep Agarwal, Suman Saini and other persons have illegally forwarded input tax credit invoice worth Rs.4,43,88,684.65 and thereby they have evaded tax.

¶8

4.It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 29.04.2022. It has also been stated in the affidavit that there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with any evidence and in such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is also stated in the affidavit that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will fully cooperate in the investigation.

¶9

5.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the principal allegation against the applicant is that he along with other co-accused persons, has evaded payment of GST to the

¶10

tune of Rs.4,43,88,684.65 by wrongfully claiming into input tax credit and the aforesaid fact would be an offence under Section 132 (1) (l) (II) of the Act, which provides for imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine. Moreover, as per the provisions contained in Sub-sections 4 and 5 of Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'CGST'), the aforesaid offence is non-cognizable and bailable. He has submitted that the other allegations of commission of offences under the IPC are based on the principal offence alleged under the CGST only.

¶11

6.In support of his submissions, Sri Subham Agarwal, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the Case of Nitin Verma vs. State of U.P., 2021 (49) GSTL 357 Allahabad, in which the offence alleged was of evasion of GST of an amount exceeding Rs.100 crores, which offence is non-bailable and which carries punishment of imprisonment up to five years and in that case, this Court had granted an anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶12

7.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶13

8.Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the principal offence alleged against the applicant is of evasion of amounting to Rupees less than 500 lacs, which carries a maximum punishment of imprisonment for three years and which offence is bailable and also keeping in view the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶14

9.In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merit of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶15

10.Let the applicant Vishnu Pratap be released on bail in Case Crime No. 374 of 2022 of 2022, under Sections 420, 424, 467, 468, 120-B IPC and Sections 122 and 132 of the U.P. and Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, Police Station Kwarsi, District Aligarh on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

11.In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.10.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶22

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.10.19 18:53:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vishnu Pratap v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Pratap v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shanu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Kumar Chaurasia Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Kumar Mandal Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Vs State of U.P.