Page 176 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

646 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
Bail (Contd.)
Magistrate for Police remand of applicants - Section 438 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Manmohan Lalman Agarwal v. State of Gujarat (Guj.) .... 19
— Anticipatory bail - Grant of CGST/SGST - Business run from bogus
address - Huge transaction done without reflecting in account of firm -
HELD : Considering gravity of accusation and possibility of accused
fleeing from justice, it was not fit case to grant anticipatory bail - Accused
plea that notice was required before lodging FIR rejected as offence were
alleged to be committed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120B of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Also, it was case of economic fraud where stay
is not granted against arrest as investigation might require custodial
interrogation — Govind Agarwal v. State of U.P. (All.) .................. 551
— Criminal Offence of alleged Trade Mark violation - GST - Old bags with
brand name printed theron - Applicant accused of manufacturing
duplicate cement bags under Trade Mark of various cement companies,
pleading that he is a GST registered dealer dealing, inter alia, in purchase
of defective/waste bags on payment of tax and disposing them off in
terms of policies of companies - It is further pleaded that there is no
violation of Copy right as goods are not Artistic Work and that seizure
has been made in violation of Trade Marks Act, 1999 - HELD : In view of
prima facie case being made out in terms of aforesaid pleadings and fact
that accused is already in custody for long, Bail is granted to him on
furnishing of personal bond with two sureties of like amount as per
satisfaction of Trial Court - During bail, accused shall not tamper with
any evidence, shall not delay trial, not indulge in unlawful activity and
shall not misuse liberty - Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
— Deokant Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (All.) ....................... 16
— Petitioner played pivotal role in the entire scam for the purpose of
incorporating 18 different firms wherein in a majority of the firms, his e-
mail ID or phone number used - Bank transactions of huge amount
effected in the account of Ansh Hospitality as well as Shree Bala Ji
Wooltax - Owners of these firms viz. Manish and Inder Pratap Singh
unable to furnish any justifiable explanation as to on what count the said
payment has been received, when the said firms not found to be actually
into business - Consequently, complicity of the kingpin Rajesh Mittal and
also of Manish, owner of Ansh Hospitality and of petitioner Mittal and
also of petitioner Inder Partap Singh to save GST is clearly evident - Bail
not granted keeping in view the enormity of the scam and the colossal
loss caused to the State exchequer, which has lost GST - Section 439 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Rajesh v. State of Haryana (P&H) ........ 93
— Petitioner’s Counsel Satnarain being an Advocate by profession, rendered
his professional services and assistance for the purpose of incorporation
of the firms - It cannot be said that he had joined hands with the
fraudsters or was beneficiary of any amount other than his professional
fee - Petitioner’s Counsel Satnarain having already been behind bars
since the last about 8 months, his further detention will not serve any
useful purpose - Bail granted - Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 — Rajesh v. State of Haryana (P & H) ................. 93

GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  176