This is a bail application filed by an accused in a crime related to non-deposit of GST. The court considered the allegations of fraud, the petitioner's antecedents, and evidence substantiating the disclosure against him, ultimately rejecting the bail plea.
Prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 5849 of 2021
--------- Satya Narayan Sinha ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... … Opposite Party ---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P.
--------- 04/14.12.2021 Defects as pointed out by the office are ignored.
Heard Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with Dhansar P.S. Case No. 167 of 2020.
It has been alleged that Sarbasni Narayani Traders had not deposited the GST for the months from January, 2019 to May 2019 and for non-deposit of GSTR-3B the State was deprived of its revenue and the businessman got a benefit of Rs.15,90,22,138/- from ITC.
On a search conducted in the business place, it was found that no business of any type was running in the name of the businessman Vikky Banerjee who disclosed that he was not aware about the non-deposit of GST and that he is merely having a Chowmin Stall from where he earns his livelihood. It has been alleged that Vikky Banerjee had disclosed that the petitioner had come to his shop and had stated that he was involved in chain marketing business and had requested him to give his PAN card, Aadhar Card, registered mobile SIM and photo etc. and he had also generated one code in the name of Vikky Banerjee with a further assurance that he will be paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as commission by the petitioner. It was, therefore, suspected that the petitioner by fraudulently taking authorization from him and by taking all his documents had committed such offence.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was Vikky Banerjee who is the proprietor of M/s. Sarbasni Narayani Trader and who was the person involved in non-deposit of the GST amount. It has further been stated that the petitioner has been implicated on the disclosure made by Vikky Banerjee. Learned counsel further submits that the
-2-
competent authority had granted sanction for prosecution against M/s. Narayani Traders and its proprietor Vikky Banerjee and since there was no sanction against the petitioner, he could not have been prosecuted in the present case. It has further been stated that the petitioner is in custody since 21.12.2020.
Learned Spl.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and has stated that the Bank statement of Vikky Banerjee was obtained which substantiated the allegations that transactions were made on different dates by the petitioner. Learned Spl.P.P. also submits that Vikky Banerjee has been framed by the petitioner as it was disclosed that Vikky Banerjee merely runs a Chowmin Stall but a fraud has been committed by the petitioner by obtaining his personal documents and in such circumstances, therefore, the prayer for bail of the petitioner should be rejected.
It appears that the disclosure made by Vikky Banerjee does seem to have been substantiated in course of investigation and it was detected that Vikky Banerjee merely runs a Chowmin Stall at Hirapur, Dhanbad. The Bank account of Vikky Banerjee also indicates that transactions were made in his account by the petitioner. It, therefore, clearly appears that the petitioner by using the documents of Vikky Banerjee had fraudulently evaded tax causing loss of revenue to the state exchequer. It also appears from the impugned order that the petitioner has a criminal antecedent being an accused in Putki P. S. Case No. 107 of 2019 though the petitioner has been granted bail in the said case by this Court in B.A. No.1543 of 2021.
Regard being had to the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected at this stage.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Umesh/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves bail in a criminal case alleging fraud in non-deposit of GST causing loss of state revenue.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satya Narayan Sinha
The State of Jharkhand
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
