Delhi High Court: Prateek Jalan, J., grants bail to a person who was alleged to cause fraudulent transactions and loss to the government.
An applicant sought bail for offences registered under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860.
The only accused named in the FIR was Sanjay Garg, son of Deep Chand Garg. The FIR alleged cheating and fraud by Saraswati Enterprises, of which Sanjay Garg was the proprietor, causing a loss to the government for the sum of Rs 9.97 crores.
The allegations in the FIR were with regard to the unauthorized and fraudulent claim of input tax credit in respect of Goods and Services Tax [GST] by Saraswati.
The allegation against the applicant was that he and a co-accused had set up a number of fictitious companies, which were being used for the purposes of defrauding the government. It was contended that the accused persons had opened banks accounts in fictitious names and provided their telephone numbers and email addresses in this respect.
Analysis and Decision
In Court’s opinion, the applicant was entitled to bail.
From the status reported, it appeared that the main link of the present applicant with the transactions in question was on the basis of the use of the mobile No. and his email address.
High Court expressed that the applicant in conspiracy with co-accused had registered various bogus firms and opened fictitious bank accounts.
Further, as per the status report, the applicant neither has prior criminal antecedents nor is there any material to suggest that he is a flight risk.
The evidence in the present case was largely documentary and had already been placed before the trial court. Hence, the chances of the applicant tampering with the evidence was therefore unlikely.
Seriousness of the offences alone is not conclusive of the applicant’s entitlement to bail, as held by the Supreme Court inter alia in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40.
Concluding the matter, the applicant was granted bail subject to the following conditions:
- The applicant will furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, one of which will be from a blood relative of the applicant, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
- The applicant will remain resident at the address mentioned in the memo of parties
- The applicant will inform the Investigating Officer and the Trial Court in advance of any change in his residential address.
- The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed before the Trial Court.
- The applicant will give his mobile numbers to the IO and ensure that the mobile numbers are kept operational and reachable at all times.
- The applicant will not directly or indirectly tamper with evidence or try to influence any of the prosecution witness in the case. In case the same is established, the bail granted to the applicant shall stand cancelled forthwith.
In view of the above, application stood disposed of. [Pulkit v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1074, decided on 12-4-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
For the Petitioner:
Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocate with Kapil Madan, Gurmukh Singh Arora, Ramya Verma, Pulkit Pandey, Advocates
For the Respondent:
Amit Chadha, APP for the State with Insp. J.S. Mishra, PS EOW
