Allahabad HC Grants Anticipatory Bail as Delayed Tax Payment Lacks Embezzlement Allegation [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court held that anticipatory bail can be granted in a case of delayed tax payment when there is no allegation of embezzlement.

Tanveer Asharaf filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS seeking protection from arrest in a case registered under Section 316(5) BNS for non-deposit of Income Tax and GST amounting to Rs. 8,269 at Police Station Nagar, Basti.

The applicant’s counsel argued that there was no allegation of embezzlement in the FIR, and the only allegation was regarding delayed payment, which had been deposited on 31.10.2024. The counsel argued that if there was any irregularity, it should lead to civil recovery proceedings and not criminal action, and the applicant had no criminal history.

The counsel also argued that co-accused Nasir Ahmad had already been granted anticipatory bail in the same case, and the applicant feared arrest during the investigation.

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

The state counsel argued against the bail plea but did not dispute the fact that the tax amount was already deposited and that there was no allegation of embezzlement.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Neeraj Tiwari observed that the case related only to delayed tax payment and that the applicant had no criminal antecedents. The court observed that anticipatory bail can be considered in cases where custodial interrogation is not required, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi).

The court found that the nature of the allegations and the applicant’s antecedents justified the grant of anticipatory bail while ensuring conditions for cooperation with the investigation.

The court held that the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation, prohibition on influencing witnesses, restriction on travel without permission, and mandatory presence during key stages of the trial.

The court directed that the prosecution could seek cancellation of bail if the applicant misused the liberty. The anticipatory bail application was disposed of with these directions.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates