While dismissing an application for anticipatory bail by an accused for a GST scam, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that custodial interrogation can be allowed if the charges against the accused are of cheating and the amount involved is massive.
The allegations against the Petitioner-applicant, Mr. Nitin Goyal were of fraud related to GST invoices and getting credits to the extent of Rs. 1,10,35,701/-. The petitioner argued that the primary evidence is by way of the confession made by Hemraj Ahuja, which is not admissible against the petitioner because it was not inculpatory, and that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.
Justice Anoop Chitkara observed that the allegations against the petitioner are of cheating the State by claiming input credit through fake invoices by using fake addresses of the firms created through different proprietors and defrauded the State to the extent of more than Rs. One crore. A perusal of the FIR and investigation points out towards the existence of a primafacie case against the petitioner.
“When the allegations against an accused are of cheating and the amount involved is massive, like the present case, where it is more than rupees one crore, the investigating agency’s demand for custodial interrogation is based on the following judicial precedents, which bind all the investigating agencies,” the Court said.
Denying the anticipatory bail application, the Court held that “the petitioner took enormous advantage of the loopholes and defects in the GST software, the system put in place, and the lack of efficient standards to ensure that it becomes impossible to misuse the scheme.”
“The argument that the co-accused was granted bail and even the petitioner is entitled to bail on parity, is not sustainable because the specific allegations against the co-accused Shrawan were that a sum of rupees ten lacs had fallen to his share and he had undergone custody of five months. Thus, the bail granted to the co-accused was in an application filed under section 439 CrPC, (CRM-M-26610-2022), and the petitioner had undergone custody of five months viz-a-viz the alleged amount of Rs. Ten lacs. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on parity,” the Court said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
