Case Law Details
Pragnesh Manharbhai Kantariya Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court has granted regular bail to Pragnesh Manharbhai Kantariya, accused in a ₹537 crore fake transaction case involving wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims worth ₹96.95 crore. The case, registered under the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was filed with the State Tax Officer – EOW, Enforcement, Division-12, Gandhidham. The prosecution alleged that Kantariya engaged in financial dealings with 24 fictitious firms, claiming ITC benefits without actual exchange of goods.
During the hearing, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) opposed the bail, arguing that the accused actively participated in fraudulent transactions and benefited from illicit ITC claims. The prosecution highlighted that the alleged scam involved a large-scale misuse of the tax credit system, amounting to significant financial irregularities. The APP further contended that allowing bail could potentially hinder the ongoing investigation.
However, the Court noted that the investigation was complete, and a charge sheet had already been filed. It considered the legal precedents set in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI ([2012] 1 SCC 40), where the Supreme Court emphasized that bail should not be denied merely based on the gravity of the offense but should take into account the likelihood of the trial being prolonged. Given that the trial proceedings were not expected to conclude in the near future, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant bail while imposing strict conditions.
Kantariya was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with one surety of the same amount. The conditions of bail include restrictions on travel outside Gujarat, periodic police reporting, and the surrender of his passport. Additionally, the Court directed that he must not obstruct the investigation or tamper with evidence. The Court clarified that its observations were preliminary and should not influence the trial proceedings.
Appearance:
MR. APURVA N MEHTA(7202) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1.RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.
2. The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023, for regular bail in connection with File No. STO – EOW / DC -12 / M/s. Infinity Exim, Pragnesh Manharbhai Kantariyha / 2024 – 25 /24 dated 12.2024 registerd with the State Tax Officer – EOW, Enforcement, Division-12, Gandhidham.
3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable
4. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application, inter alia, contending that the applicant is actively involved in commission of the offence in question. The applicant had transacted with several fictitious firms and the transactions with those fictitious firms comes to the tune of Rs.537 crorres and had thus, obtained the benefit of Input Tax Credit worth Rs.96.95 crores. Actually, no transaction at all had taken place and even no goods had been exchanged between the parties and without exchange of any goods, the Input Tax Credit had been availed. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.
5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the In present case, the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. As per the case of prosecution, the applicant is alleged to have transacted with 24 fictitious firms and the amount of transactions with those firms comes to Rs.537 crores and on the basis of the said transactions, the applicant had wrongful availed the benefit of Input Tax Credit worth Rs.96.95 crores though no actual goods had been exchanged between the parties. The punishment prescribed for the offence alleged in the FIR against the present applicant is to the extent of imprisonment for the period of 5 years. Having regard to the punishment prescribed for the offence so also, the fact that the trial of the offence is not likely to commence and conclude in near future, the present application deserves consideration.
6. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012]1 SCC 40.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail, on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;
(a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
(c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;
(d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned;
(e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in a month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;
(f) furnish the present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of Trial Court;
9. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time 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.
10. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.
11. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.
12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
Author Bio
