Case Law Details
Smt. Shalini Singhal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
The Madhya Pradesh High Court considered a first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in connection with Crime No. 49/2023 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Ujjain, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The case arose from a preliminary enquiry conducted by CGST and Central Excise authorities, which allegedly revealed forged bills, invoices, toll receipts and related documents used by certain non-existent firms to facilitate fraudulent transactions and claim wrongful GST input tax credit, causing loss to the exchequer.
The prosecution alleged that the applicant, a director of the concerned company, acted in conspiracy with other accused to generate sham documentation showing sale and purchase of soyabean on paper. The applicant contended that she had been falsely implicated, asserting that she was a dormant partner with no role in day-to-day operations, that the company’s bank account was operated by another co-accused, and that all cheques were signed by him. She expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation and argued there was no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.
The State opposed the application, describing the offence as a white-collar crime, alleging active involvement, and contending that custodial interrogation might be required. The Court noted that the alleged offence pertained to a period prior to or during 2020, followed by detailed investigation by revenue authorities before lodging of the FIR. In these circumstances, the Court found that custodial interrogation was not necessary.
Without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court granted anticipatory bail, directing release upon arrest on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including cooperation with investigation, non-interference with evidence, and travel restrictions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
Case Diary is perused.
This is first application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail filed on behalf of applicant – Shalini Singal.
2. Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.49/2023, registered at Police Station- Economic Offences Wing, District – Ujjain for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that during the preliminary investigation in Enquiry No.3/2021 conducted by the CGST and Central Excise Ujjain on 30.07.2019 in respect of Agrawal Soya Extract Pvt. Ltd., Dhamaniya, Neemuch, it was found that the bills, invoices, toll receipts, bill T, etc. sent by Kapil Trading Co. Indore, Amar Jyoti Enterprises Indore and Samriddhi Traders Indore to Agrawal Soya Extract Pvt. Ltd. were found to be forged and said companies were non-existent. It was also found that the company had entered into sale of soyabean fraudulently and taken the tax credit thereby causing loss to the exchequer.
4 . Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is alleged that the applicant is a Director of the Agrawal Soya Extract Pvt. Ltd. along with co-accused persons and all of them entered into a criminal conspiracy and prepared bogus invoice, bill T and Soybean DOC in order to demonstrate sale and purchase of soyabean on paper in order to get the benefit of GST Input Tax Credit on sham transactions. It is further alleged that the bank account of the aforesaid company was opened in IndusInd Bank, Indore which was being operated by co-accused Navneet Garg which is evident from the letter issued by the bank. All the cheques were issued under the signature of co-accused Navneet Garg. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is the wife of co-accused Deepak Singhal and is a dormant partner in the company who has nothing to do with the day-to-day affairs of the company. The applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation. There is no likelihood of applicant’s absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence if she is released on anticipatory bail. She is ready to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. With the aforesaid submissions prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is made.
5 . Per contra, learned Government Advocate has opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant as well as other co-accused persons are active directors of the company and are involved in various cases of such nature and are in the habit of issuing forged bills for getting false benefits of input tax credit. Applicant has committed white-collar crime. Investigation is pending and custodial interrogation may be required. Therefore, the applicant may not be enlarged on anticipatory bail and the application deserves to be dismissed.
6. The crime appears to have been committed prior to/during the year 2020 whereafter the revenue authorities have conducted a detailed investigation and thereafter lodged FIR. Therefore, it appears that custodial interrogation is not required.
7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant Shalini Singal. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of applicant, she shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by applicant:-
1. She will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;
2. She will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. She will not indulge in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. She shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused;
5. She will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and
6. She will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
C.C. as per rules.
Author Bio
