Sanjay Thakur Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
Summary: The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, considered the bail application of Sanjay Thakur in Case Crime No. 0272 of 2025 concerning allegations of wrongful input tax credit through a non-existent concern, Rajdhani Enterprises. The FIR dated 17 June 2025 originally named Ramesh Chandra, while the applicant was subsequently implicated during investigation. The applicant asserted that he had been falsely implicated and had no previous criminal history. The prosecution referred to an alleged custodial statement concerning online GST registration, the absence of actual business and invoices issued in the firm’s name.
The State acknowledged that apart from statements attributed to the applicant and Yogesh Garg before the police, the investigation had not collected other material establishing the applicant’s involvement in creating a fake firm and claiming false ITC. The applicant also argued that the alleged conduct fell under the specific penal provisions of Section 132 of GST law. Considering the lack of other material connecting the applicant to the alleged offence, the Court granted bail. It required a personal bond and two sureties, and imposed conditions against tampering with evidence, pressuring witnesses and failing to attend trial dates. The Court did not finally decide the applicant’s argument concerning the exclusivity of GST penal provisions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna and Sri Rohit Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0272 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 3378, 336(3) & 340(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Rae Bareli.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the Inspector of Police on 17.06.2025 against a solitary named accused Ramesh Chandra stating that the aforesaid accused person is claiming Input Tax Credit (for brevity ‘ITC’) by creating sham concern in the name of Rajdhani Enterprises whereas the said firm is non existent and no business is being carried out from the address of the firm mentioned in the documents.
4. During investigation, the applicant has been implicated and his name has been included in the charge sheet.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no previous criminal history.
6. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application on the basis of written instructions provided to her as per which the investigation of the case is still going on.
7. The learned AGA has produced the relevant extract of case diary for perusal of the Court including recovery memo wherein it is mentioned that on 07.07.2025, the applicant and Yogesh Garg were apprehended on the basis of an information received by a mukhbir. It is claimed that in his custodial statement, the applicant allegedly stated that he had applied through online mode for registration of a firm and he has been allotted a GST number. Although no business was being carried out by the firm. Several bills have been generated in the name of the firm.
8. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, the applicant has been made accused. The learned AGA has stated that besides the statement given by the applicant and Yogesh Garg to the police, no other material has been collected in the investigation from which it could be established that the applicant is involved in creation of fake firm and claiming false Input Tax Credit.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the offence of claiming false ITC is covered by the specific provisions contained in Section 132(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) of GST Act and claiming false Input Tax Credit does not amount to any offence under the Penal Code when it is dealt with by a special statute.
10. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that besides the statement of the applicant recorded by the Investigating Officer he was apprehended on the basis of the information received from a mukhbir, there appears to be no other material to establish his involvement in commission of the offence, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
11. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.
11. Let the applicant-Sanjay Thakur be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the 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.
Order Date :- 6.8.2025
