Case Law Details
Krupeshbhai Rameshbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
In the case of Krupeshbhai Rameshbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat, the Gujarat High Court recently granted bail to the accused involved in a significant tax fraud case. The case pertains to fraudulent input tax credits (ITC) worth over ₹15.58 crore, obtained through fictitious transactions with 69 non-existent firms. This decision has brought attention to the legal challenges associated with tax fraud and the implications for both businesses and the legal system.
Background
The case against Krupeshbhai Rameshbhai Patel was initiated following his arrest on June 27, 2024. The arrest was made in connection with an investigation conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of the FSU-5, Ahmedabad. The investigation revealed that Patel had allegedly engaged in fraudulent activities by showing transactions with 69 firms, 38 of which were found to be fictitious. These non-existent firms were used to claim ITC amounting to ₹15.58 crore, which Patel had wrongfully availed.
Arguments Presented
The defense counsel argued that the nature of the offense and the role attributed to Patel warranted his release on bail. The counsel emphasized that Patel had been in custody since June 27, 2024, and that his assets had already been attached. The defense also assured the court that Patel was not a flight risk and would be available for trial.
On the other hand, the prosecution strongly opposed the bail, citing the serious nature of the allegations. The prosecution highlighted the ongoing investigation and the active role Patel played in the commission of the offense, including the forgery of documents like e-way bills.
Court’s Observations
After considering the arguments, the Gujarat High Court noted that while the allegations were serious, the circumstances of the case, including the fact that Patel’s assets were attached and the punishment for the offense was up to five years, made it appropriate to grant bail. The court also referenced precedents set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I., which emphasized the importance of considering whether the accused is a flight risk, the possibility of witness tampering, and the presence of a prima facie case.
Bail Conditions
The High Court granted bail under strict conditions, including:
- Execution of a bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of the same amount.
- Prohibition on making any inducement or threat to witnesses.
- Requirement to maintain law and order and refrain from criminal activities.
- Submission of documentary proof of residence and contact information.
- Filing of an affidavit detailing immovable properties.
- Surrender of the passport or filing of an affidavit stating the absence of a passport.
- Obtaining prior permission from the trial court before leaving the country.
Conclusion
The Gujarat High Court’s decision to grant bail to Krupeshbhai Rameshbhai Patel in this high-profile tax fraud case underscores the complexities involved in balancing the rights of the accused with the need to ensure the integrity of the judicial process. The court’s detailed conditions aim to safeguard against any potential abuse of the bail privilege while allowing the accused to prepare for his defense.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1. Draft amendment is allowed and same is carried out forthwith.
Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.
2. This application is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for regular bail in connection with Memorandum of Arrest File No.ACST/FSU-5/M/s. KEPCO ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, KRUPESHBHAI RAMESHBHAI PATEL/2024-25/B.05, Dated 27.06.2024 registered with Ld. Asst. Commissioner, FSU – 5, Ahmedabad.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that considering the nature of offence and role attributed to the applicant, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
4. The learned APP appearing for the respondent State vehemently submits that the present applicant had shown fictitious transactions with 69 firms and upon inquiry of those 38 fictitious firms, the transactions which were being shown by the present applicant were fictitious and no such firms were ever in existence and on the basis of fictitious transactions, the present applicant had availed the benefits of input tax credits more than 15.58 Crore of rupees. He further submits that availing the wrongful benefits of input tax credit, the present applicant had also forged certain documents like e-way bills etc. Thus, there is active participation of the present applicant in commission of offence in question. It is further submitted that the investigation of the present offence in still in progress. Learned APP, therefore, submits that the offences which have been charged, are serious in nature and looking to the facts as well as the allegations levelled against the applicant, no discretion is required to be exercised.
5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. From the record it appears that the present applicant is alleged to have availed input tax credit worth Rs.15.58 Crores on the basis of fictitious transactions which had been shown by the present applicant to have been entered by him with 38 fictitious firms. The record also indicated that the assets of the firms of the present applicant have already been attached and having regard to the same and so also the fact that the punishment of the present offence is five years and the present applicant has been arrested in connection of the present offence in the month of June, 2024, the present application deserves to be allowed.
6. This court has also considered the following aspects:
(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.
(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.
(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 27.06.2024.
(d) The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations made in the FIR and without discussing the evidence in details as well as without going into details, prima-facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR, on executing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that;
(a) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.
(b) shall maintain law and order and not to indulge in any criminal activities.
(c) shall furnish the documentary proof of complete, correct and present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and to the Trial Court at the time of executing the bond and shall not change residence without prior permission of the trial Court.
(d) shall provide contact numbers as well as the contact numbers of the sureties before the Trial Court. In case of change in such numbers inform in writing immediately to the trial Court.
(e) shall file an affidavit stating immovable properties whether self acquired or ancestral with description, location and present value of such properties before the Trial Court, if any.
(f) shall not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court
(g) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week. If accused does not possess passport, shall file an Affidavit to that effect.
8. The authorities concerned shall release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law.
9. At the trial, the concerned trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
10. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
Author Bio
