2025(04)LCX0425

Allahabad High Court

Praveen Kumar

Versus

Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23980 of 2024 decided on 28-04-2025

Neutral Citation No

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70050

Court No. - 77

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23980 of
2024

Applicant :- Praveen Kumar
Opposite Party :- Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence
Counsel for Applicant :- Veerendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Parv Agarwal

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

1. Applicant– Praveen Kumar has filed this application under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case No. 47 of 2023, under Sections 132(1)(b) & 132(1)(i) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, D.G.G.I. Meerut. The applicant is in custody since his arrest on 12.01.2024.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Director General of Central Goods and Services Taxes Commissionerate, Meerut instituted a complaint dated 07.03.2024 through Dr. Rahul Singh, Superintendent, Meerut against Praveen Kumar wherein it is alleged that an information was received against M/s Raj Enterprises (Proprietor Raj Kumar) having GSTIN09CKPPR3896C2ZF is engaged in passing on fradulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) and during search the said firm was found to be non-existent. Further, it was found that 90 other firms are also registered with mobile No.7669581216, a registered mobile of M/s Raj Enterprises, and out of these one firm namely M/s Pankaj Traders (Prop. Pankaj Ora) was also found involved in passing on fraudulent Input Tax Credit and this firm was also non-operational.The compilation of data revealed that these 91 firms made supplies involving Input Tax Credit of Rs.357 crores (approximately) and the details of these firms are contained as Table-A in paragraph 1.2.6 of the complaint. During investigation, it was noticed that the service provider of IP's in these non-existent firms is M/s VMPS Internet Pvt. Ltd. and through the said company the details of the common user involved in filing of returns of non-existent firms surfaced as Praveen Kumar. Thereafter, a search was conducted at his residential premises, whereupon a mobile phone, three laptops and other incriminating documents were recovered from him. On his appearance on 11.01.2024/12.01.2024, his statement under Section 70 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was recorded, wherein he stated that he along with Naved, Shadab, Raghu and Shamin created the fake firms and he also created fake invoices, E-way Bills as per directions of Naved, Shadab, Raghu and Shamin. During interrogation, Praveen Kumar was also confronted with other material like fake invoices of various nonexistent firms, documents retrieved from laptop, fake E-way Bills etc. and he admitted his involvement in availing or passing on fake Input Tax Credit. During the course of tendering his statement, Praveen Kumar was also confronted with list of 242 firms and he deposed that all these firms were being operated by him. According to Praveen Kumar, all these 242 firms were created merely on paper by him and his accomplices for passing on fraudulent ITC and the details of other 141 firms are contained as Table-B in paragraph 1.3.21 of the complaint. Broadly on these allegations, the complainant is prosecuting the accused Praveen Kumar for the alleged offences of abovenoticed offences. A copy of the complaint/charge sheet dated 07.03.2024 is appended as Annexure-1 of the bail application.

3. The accused-applicant had applied for grant of regular bail before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate and District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, but the said concession was declined vide respective orders dated 24.01.2024 and 02.05.2024. Hence, this application.

4. Mr. Parv Agrawal, learned counsel for Union of India-opposite party has appeared and filed his counter affidavit dated 08.11.2024 as well as supplementary-counter affidavit dated 31.2.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the accusedPraveen Kumar is an accountant, who is working from home and he has been falsely implicated through the complaint dated 07.03.2024 and no such offence as alleged has been committed by him. Learned counsel has argued that though as per complainant, the applicant acted on behalf of Naved, Shadab, Raghu and Shamin, but none of these persons have been arraigned as an accused in the complaint, which is directed only against the applicant. He further submits that there is no evidence collected during investigation to connect the applicant with the alleged 232 firms utilised for availing/passing on fraudulent Input Tax Credit, and he was arrested on 12.01.2024, whereas the trial in the case is yet to commence, as even charges have not been framed against the accused. He prays for bail.

6. Mr. Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail who argued that the applicant is the mastermind who was engaged in preparing the invoices on behalf of 232 firms and pursuant to the said invoices, there was no supply of goods, therefore, the applicant-accused facilitated the fake Input Tax Credit in favour of the beneficiaries. According to him, the search was conducted at the residence of the applicant and various incriminating material stands collected, which shows his involvement in the crime, and further, during interrogation, the applicant accepted his involvement in crime through his statement under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Mr. Parv Agarwal has pointed out that a total amount of fraudulent Input Tax Credit comes out to be Rs.1048 crores, wherein 232 firms were involved and these invoices were further issued in favour of 4088 other firms, and as the activities of these fake firms were handled by the applicant, therefore, he is being prosecuted for these offences. He prays that application be dismissed.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that the case of the prosecution is based upon documentary material or the statement of accused recorded under Section 70 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. During the course of hearing, it is fairly admitted by Mr. Parv Agarwal, learned counsel that neither the details of 4088 firms which received the fake invoices from 232 non-existent firms are contained in the complaint, nor the bank accounts of these fake firms were verified to ascertain if, the same are operated by the applicant. Further, no documentary evidence connecting the applicant with 232 firms has been collected and the reliance has been placed upon the confession of applicant recorded during his custodial interrogation, but in the considered opinion of this Court, the truthfulness of the same or its evidentiary value would be tested during trial which is yet to commence.

8. Admittedly, the offence alleged in the complaint are triable by Magistrate and the same provides for maximum punishment of 5 years. The investigation in the case is complete as the complaint/charge-sheet dated 07.03.2024 already stands filed before the trial court and the charges against the applicant has not been framed so far. During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by Mr. Parv Agarwal, learned counsel that though the case is fixed for recording of pre-charge evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C., but no prosecution witnesses has been examined till date. Thus, it is clear that the conclusion of trial would consume considerable time, and further detention of the applicant behind the bars would not be justified keeping in view the period of more than a year and three months already undergone by him. That apart, the prosecution witnesses are official witnesses and at present there does not seem to be any possibility of their being won over. Thus, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the applicant during the pendency of the trial.

9. Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the applicant- Praveen Kumar be released on regular bail in the above case subject to his furnishing the requisite bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial court. It is further directed that the accused-applicant shall also abide by the terms and conditions of bail, which shall be imposed by the trial court at the time of acceptance of his bail bond and surety bond.

Order Date :- 28.4.2025