Allowed

Vinod Jain v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023BAIL/2038/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application where the applicant, Vinod Jain, sought release pending trial in a case involving IPC fraud offences and tax evasion under the GST Act. The High Court allowed the bail application, imposing conditions on the applicant to cooperate with proceedings and directing the trial to be expedited.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail after furnishing a personal bond and two sureties; trial expedited within one year.

Vinod Jain Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2038 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Nimesh Kumar Shukla

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

By means of the the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.62 of 2021 at Police Station-Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad under Sections 420, 424, 467, 468, 120B, 471 I.P.C. and Sections 122, 132 CGST/UP GST Act, 2017. The applicant is in jail since 01.10.2022.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 19.10.2022.

¶8

The following arguments made by Shri Vinod Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel assisted by Shri Nimesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel and Shri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Neeraj Kumar Singh, learned brief holder for the State and Shri Chandan Agrawal, learned AGA for the State from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶9

The applicant did not fraudulently avail input tax credit.

¶10

Adjudication proceedings are on foot regarding

¶11

determination of the tax liability of the applicant.

¶12

The applicant is contesting the case of the revenue tooth and nail.

¶13

The case of the revenue stated in the F.I.R. discloses that tax effect of the evaded tax created a compoundable offence. However, as an afterthought, show cause notice issued by the revenue reflects an exaggerated amount to implicate the applicant in this case and burnish the credentials of the revenue investigations.

¶14

Even if the show cause notice is taken on its face value, maximum punishment is for a period of three years.

¶15

The applicant hopes to succeed in the adjudication before the tax authorities.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial proceedings before the revenue authorities.

¶17

Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶18

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶19

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his

¶20

influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶21

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let the applicant- Vinod Jain be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶23

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶24

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

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶26

The revenue can secure its interests in the proceedings taken out under the GST Act for determining the extent of the alleged evasion.

¶27

Order Date :- 16.2.2023 Dhananjai

¶28

Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Jain v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Jain v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puneet Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Varun Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Pooja Shukla and 3 Others Vs Vijay Kumar Tiwari and 2 Others

Arif Vs State of U.P.

Megh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Javed Mohammad @ Pump Vs State of U.P.