Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U. P. (Allahabad High Court)
Summary: The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, granted bail to Mukesh Kumar in a case registered under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita concerning allegedly fraudulent GST registration of M/s Nishad Traders. The prosecution alleged that the declared business premises and the premises corresponding to the electricity bill furnished during registration did not exist, outward supplies of Rs. 65,31,60,206/- had been declared without downloadable e-way bills, and the firm had passed on bogus Input Tax Credit of Rs. 11,75,68,837.08. The applicant submitted that his lost Aadhaar and PAN documents had been misused, that he had attempted to lodge a complaint on 23.03.2024 and applied for a replacement PAN card on 27.03.2024, and that the mobile number used for registration belonged to another person with whom the investigation had established no connection.
He claimed to be a victim of cyber fraud and identity theft. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the economic offence and apprehensions of absconding, evidence tampering and influencing witnesses. The Court acknowledged the magnitude of the allegations but noted that the applicant had been in custody since 21.02.2026, had no criminal history, and that investigation was complete with the charge-sheet submitted on 05.05.2026.
No material indicated a likelihood of absconding or interference with evidence or witnesses. Relying on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, it explained that pre-trial detention secures attendance and the fair administration of justice and is not punitive. Considering these factors, the mandate of Article 21 and bail already granted to a co-accused, the Court allowed the application without expressing any opinion on merits. Release was directed on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence or pressurising witnesses and requiring attendance before the trial court. Its observations were expressly confined to the bail application.
Cases Discussed
- Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 (Supreme Court). Relied upon to explain that bail secures the accused’s appearance at trial, that pre-trial detention is not punitive, and that deprivation of liberty must be justified by necessity.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Written submissions filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
3. This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 695 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.
4. In brief, the prosecution case is that the first information report was lodged by the informant, Alpana Verma, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, State Tax Department, Ayodhya Division-B, Ayodhya, alleging that upon inspection of the declared business premises of the registered firm, M/s Nishad Traders, situated at Banki Road, near Paris Tailor, Nawabganj, Barabanki, the firm was not found at the given address. Further, no contact could be established with the firm through the mobile number available on the GST portal.
5. It is further alleged that the Aadhaar card of Mukesh Kumar, showing his father’s name as Lallu and his address as Mohalla Bhilwa Tanta, Maudaha, Hamirpur, had been furnished at the time of registration of the firm. However, the premises corresponding to the electricity bill submitted during registration were not found to exist. From the date of registration of the firm, i.e., 12.06.2024, until the lodging of the first information report, outward supplies amounting to Rs. 65,31,60,206/- had been declared, although no e-way bills were available for download. The firm had also furnished details of a Yes Bank account at Motihari, Bihar. It is further alleged that the firm had passed on bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 11,75,68,837.08, and that the registration had been obtained with the intention of causing loss to the Government revenue.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a poor person who has barely passed Class VIII. It is further submitted that approximately one year prior to the alleged incident, the applicant had lost his wallet containing important identity documents, including his Aadhaar Card and PAN Card. In this regard, the applicant lodged a complaint on 23.03.2024; however, the same was not registered. It is further submitted that, after losing the aforesaid documents, the applicant re-downloaded his Aadhaar Card and applied for a new PAN Card on 27.03.2024.
7. Learned counsel further submits that, as per the allegations made in the FIR, the alleged place of business was found to be non-existent and even the house number mentioned in the registration documents did not exist. It is further submitted that the mobile number used for obtaining GST registration, i.e., 8115074323, belongs to one Raksh Pal, son of Bateeram, resident of Village Bighapur, Sithauli, Post Jariyanpur, Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Admittedly, no incriminating material establishing any connection between the applicant and the aforesaid mobile number has been discovered during the investigation.
8. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicant is himself a victim of cyber fraud and identity theft and has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of the alleged misuse of his lost identity documents for obtaining a fraudulent GST registration. The prosecution has failed to establish any direct nexus between the applicant and the alleged transactions.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.02.2026. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been submitted on 05.05.2026 and, therefore, the applicant’s further custody is not required for the purpose of investigation.
10. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the allegations made in the FIR disclose the commission of a serious economic offence involving fraudulent GST registration. It is further submitted that the alleged business premises of the registered firm were found to be non-existent and even the house number mentioned in the registration documents could not be verified.
11. Learned A.G.A. further submits that although the charge-sheet has been submitted, there remains a possibility that the applicant may abscond and tamper with the prosecution evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail.
12. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is conscious of the fact that the present case involves allegations of considerable magnitude. The applicant has been in custody since 21.02.2026 and has no criminal history. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the applicant is likely to abscond, tamper with the evidence, or influence, threaten, or intimidate the victim or any other witness, if released on bail. The investigation already stands concluded, and the charge-sheet has been submitted. Thus, while the allegation regarding monetary loss cannot be ignored, the same, by itself, cannot be considered in isolation from the aforesaid factors while determining whether the applicant’s continued incarceration is warranted, particularly at the pre-trial stage. The object of pre-trial detention is not punitive, but to secure the applicant’s presence during trial and ensure the fair administration of justice, as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:
“21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.
23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.“
13. In view of the above and considering the submissions of learned counsel for both sides, the nature of the accusation, the nature of the supporting evidence, the prima facie material available on record, the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant, the fact that the investigation stands concluded and the charge-sheet has been submitted, along with the reformative theory of punishment and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and co-accused has already been granted bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.
14. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
15. Let the applicant- Mukesh Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court, either personally or through his counsel.
16. Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.
17. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.
