Page 74 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

560 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
13. On the other hand, Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed for
grant of bail and has drawn attention to the statement of Narendra Kumar, Dep-
uty Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector Kosi, which was placed before the
Court as case diary was received and the same was found annexed and it has
been argued that in the said statement, he has fully supported the prosecution
version as narrated in the FIR and further attention is drawn to the order of a
Division Bench of this Court dated 30-5-2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition
No. 7303 of 2019 Govind Enterprises v. State of U.P. and Others [2019 (27) G.S.T.L.
161 (All.)] in which the applicant had sought quashing of FIR filed against him
under the above-mentioned sections and the Division Bench had considered all
aspects of the matter at length which may be found from perusal of the said
judgment and has given finding that according to FIR necessary ingredients of
offence of cheating, by submitting false information and documents have been
clearly spelled out because a bogus firm was got registered by showing false bo-
gus addresses of business, and, by taking advantage of registration, inward e-
way bills were generated to make purchase of goods worth Rs. 35.00 odd crores
and, thereafter without generating outward supply bills, huge amount of money
was deposited in cash in undisclosed bank account, suggesting that goods were
sold without proper documentation, with a view to evade taxes. In such view of
the matter, the Division Bench of this Court has not found the case fit for quash-
ing the FIR and dismissed the same after observing that power of staying arrest
is not to be exercised mainly in the matters relating to economic fraud and there-
fore finding this to be an economic fraud, it had declined to stay the arrest.
14. I have gone through the evidence of the present case and also
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 30-5-2019 and also have gone
through case laws which have been provided by the Learned Counsel for the
applicant above, I find that this is not to be a fit case in which indulgence of
granting anticipatory bail should be exercised because it has come on record that
the applicant’s firm was found indulging in running business from bogus ad-
dress and a huge transaction is shown to have been done without there is any
such big transaction reflected from the account of the firm. The argument of the
Learned Counsel for the applicant that notice is required to be issued to the ac-
cused before lodging FIR also does not sound to be a reasonable view because
there are offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, 34 and 120B of IPC also regarding which no such notice is required to be
sent. It is found to be a case of economic fraud in which normal course adopted
by the Courts should be not to grant stay against arrest because investigation
might require custodial interrogation as well. This court is not to be guided only
by the fact that apart from IPC, offence under U.P. Act is also said to have been
committed which requires notice to be issued to the accused and in totality of the
matter this Court finds that there is no genuine ground to grant relief of anticipa-
tory bail to the accused-applicant in this matter.
15. Looking to the aforesaid fact, taking into consideration the gravity
of accusation, and there being possibility of his fleeing from justice, without ex-
pressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find good
ground for enlarging the applicant, Govind Agarwal on anticipatory bail in this
case.
16. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant Govind Agarwal
is, accordingly, rejected.
_______

GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  74