The Rajasthan High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application on alleged Fabrication of GST number and name of Firm and fraud of Rupees three crores.
The counsel appearing for the petitioners Sheetal and Padam argued that the petitioners are engaged in trade and business at Delhi and received certain goods from the accused Harsh Garg and Sarvesh alias Vinod and further argued that the petitioners did not have any direct involvement in the alleged crime in question and they are consumers only and have been falsely implicated in this FIRs lodged by different complainants.
The Counsel further argued that the alleged crime in question is purely of civil nature and it is a case of alleged non-payment of dues and not that of cheating and like offences. It was also argued that the police have also recovered goods in question and there is no need of custodial investigation from the accused petitioners, therefore, their applications seeking anticipatory bail may be allowed.
The Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that from the investigation the documents submitted by the accused-petitioners during the course of investigation were found to be fabricated as the GST number, name of the Firm and other details was found to be non-existent.
The Public Prosecutor further argued that the accused petitioners submitted a forged bill indicating the purchase of the recovered clothes and further the investigation also reveals that accused purchased the clothes from the above stated complainants and after inducing them to deliver the goods, supplied the clothes to the present petitioners and present petitioners illegally sold the same goods in the market, thus accused-petitioners along with accused Harsh Garg and Sarvesh duped the complainants and causing them loss in tune to approximately rupees three crores.
Rejecting the application for anticipatory bail the Coram comprising of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar observed that “It is pertinent to note that an investigation against the accused persons is still pending and, therefore, custodial investigation may further lead to recovery and disclosure of facts for the allegedly misappropriated goods.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
