Case Law Details
Nileshbhai Natubhai Patel Vs The State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
Conclusion: Applicant was not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail for allegedly involved in wrongfully availing ITC on the basis of fake bills of RS. 737 crores as if assessee was enlarged on anticipatory bail then, there were all chances that assessee would tamper with the evidence and witnesses and at the time of trial, assessee would not be available.
Held: Assessee entered into transaction with 36 dummy firms and false invoices and sales were raised and in pursuance thereto, the Company had issued cheques to 36 dummy firms including four person, who were arrested by the department. There were receipts of more than Rs.737.00 Crores and after the withdrawal of the amount by dummy firms, the said amount was transferred to the applicants through Angadia in cash. The department had collected certain material during the course of investigation with other accused, who had been arrested. It was the specific case of the department that the transaction worth of Rs.737.00 Crores were entered into with 36 dummy firms and there would be liability of more than Rs.137.00 Crores. Assessee contended that since no FIR had been filed against the applicants, arrest of the applicants under Section 69 could not be made. It was held that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down certain guidelines in case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Inveestigation & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5191/2020 for the grant of bail in categories/types of offence. It was pertinent to note that the present offfence could be categorized as “economic offence” where huge public money in the form of alleged tax liability of Rs.137.00 Crores was involved. This Court had considered the seriousness of the charges and the fact that assessee had not cooperated with the investigating agency though directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore in the fact of the present case, the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not be applicable. The applicant was not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail as looking to the gravity of the offence, if assessee was enlarged on anticipatory bail then, there were all chances that the applicant would tamper with the evidence and witnesses and at the time of trial, assessee would not be available.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1. As the issue involved in all these applications are similar with regard to the grant of anticipatory bail, all these applications are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
