On behalf of accused, It was submitted that accused is in judicial custody since 03.02.2021. It is submitted that applicant is 62 years of age and a CA by profession and also having proprietorship firm under the name & style of M/s Rampal Company Chartered Accountants having its office at Faridabad. The applicant’s firm has been professionally engaged by M/s Starcrest Services Pvt. Ltd. And the said company is in the business of providing personal security services and solutions to its clients. On 22.01.2021 applicant was called to the office of said company where its Directors asked applicant to pay Rs. 12.67 crores being the GST demand raised on the company by the department. The wife of the applicant arranged Rs 20 lacs in cash alongwith additional Rs. 3 lacs which was paid to the Directors of the said company. Applicant alleged that he and his wile was aetared by Directors of the company for demanding consideration from his family members an lieu of their release and subsequently applicant was made to sign a sale letter of one of his car make Toyota fortuner and another Toyota fortuner belonging to his wife was also possessed by Directors of the said company. Also. applicant was torced to make online bank transfer from his bank accounts to the company to the tune of As. 22 Lacs approximate from PNB. Rs. 8 lacs from UCO Bank and Rs. 3.50 Lacs from HDFC bank. Further a cheque of Rs. 2.70 lacs got signed from PNB saving bank and in addition cash payment of Rs.1 lac and cheque payment of Rs.1 lac was made by brother of the accused. The daughter of the applicant got registered FIR no 14 21 PS Gurugram against the Directors of the said company. During the time applicant was confined by Directors the department got certain statements recorded from him and also seized bank account with UCO bank. It is submitted that applicant has been rendering full co-operation to the department. It is submitted that as per the Act the liability of payment of GST amount is of the company who collects GST from its customers and not of statutory auditors. It is submitted that department with connivance of the Directors of the company have falsely implicated him It is submitted that there is no recovery to be effected from the applicant It is submitted that applicant is ready to join investigation and he has clean antecedents and also suffering from several diseases. It is submitted that applicant may be released on bail on any condition.
On behalf of the department, it is submitted that the department conducted search on the premises M/s Starcrest Services Pvt. Ltd. where Sanjay Singh Tanwar and Ankur Gupta were not present. It is submitted that the company voluntary deposited Rs, 1,33,22,042/- with GSTIN portal only for which they submitted DRCO3 to the applicant. It is submitted that the statement of applicant were voluntary and they have not been retracted. It is submitted that applicant did not appear before the department on 25.01.2021 and after his arrest he has not deposited any amount with the department. It is submitted that applicant intentionally got admitted in the hospital just to avoid appearing before the department. It is submitted that during July, 2017 to November, 2020 the company deposited Rs. 17.44 crore to the bank account of applicant ‘s firm and out of which only Rs. 4,62,76,328/- were deposited with the government ex-chequer. It is submitted that applicant was involved in fake GST challan and GSTR-3B return which were provided to the company as proof of GST payments and the GST payment were misappropriated to the tune of Rs. 12.67 crore as the said differential amount was made up through ITC in the GSTR-3B return submitted to the company. Even the employees of the applicant admitted that they created these forged challans on the directions of applicant. It is submitted that applicant instead of depositing Rs. 12.67 crore to government misappropriated it.
The grant of bail depends upon complex of facts and factors considered in the light of golden principles laid down from time to time by the higher Courts. In Dipak Subhash Chandra Mehta Vs. CBI : (2012) 4 SCC 134 Hon’ble Apex Court held that
….“the Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding whey bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed serious offence.
The Court granting bail has to consider, among other circumstances. the factors such as:
a) The nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence:
b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence or apprehension of threat to the complainant.