2025(07)LCX0136
Sanjeev Dixit
Versus
Union of India
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10817 of 2025 decided on 09-07-2025
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109009
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC.
BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10817 of
2025
Applicant :- Sanjeev Dixit Alias Sanjeev Kumar
Opposite Party :- Union of India
Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Tiwari,Raghuvansh
Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dhananjay Awasthi,G.A.,Parv
Agarwal
Connected Alongwith
(1) Case :- CRIMINAL MISC.
BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10795
of 2025
Applicant :- Rohit Mishra
Opposite Party :- Union O.F. India
Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Tiwari,Raghuvansh
Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dhananjay Awasthi,Parv Agarwal
(2) Case :- CRIMINAL MISC.
BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7187
of 2025
Applicant :- Viprendra Kumar Upadhyay Alias Vikash
Opposite Party :- Indian Union Finance Ministry
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Mishra,Siddhartha Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Parv Agarwal
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
1. Applicants-Sanjeev Dixit Alias Sanjeev Kumar, Rohit Mishra and Viprendra Kumar Upadhyay Alias Vikash have filed the above separate applications under Section 483 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case No. DGGI/INT/INTL/1546 of 2024- GrB respectively, under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(l) and 132(1)(i) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (In short as "CGST Act, 2017"), Department DGGI, Kanpur Regional Unit Kakadev Kanpur Nagar. The applicants are in custody since their arrest on 14.12.2024.
2. The above complaint has been filed by Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Kanpur Regional Unit through Samir Kesarwani, Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, Kanpur and the allegations in brief are that an intelligence input was received against Sanjeev Kumar Dixit alias Sanjeev Kumar, who was stated to be a mastermind in creating, operating and managing a nexus of fake firms for availing wrongful input tax credit from the firms having no actual inward supplies, and further issuing fake invoices to the beneficiaries of input tax credit without supplying the goods. These three firms namely M/s Bharat Traders, M/s Shri Amarnath Enterprises and M/s Gopal Enterprises were created on the basis of documents obtained by fraudulent means, and were utilized for facilitating onward supply of iron scrap sourced from unregistered scrap suppliers in Kanpur, which was subsequently supplied to two firms located in Punjab. Further, it was found that the GST returns of these three firms were being filed by Viprendra Kumar Upadhyay Alias Vikash, whereas Rohit Mishra, proprietor of M/s Shri Amarnath Enterprises serves for Sanjeev Kumar and operates under his directives.
During the investigation, the search was conducted at the residential premises of accused Sanjeev Kumar, but no incriminating documents, records or electronic devices relating to GST were found, though his wife Priyanka Dixit stated that he is engaged in the business of sale/purchase of scrap. The search at the house of Viprendra Kumar Upadhyay Alias Vikash resulted in recovery of documents, records and electronic devices, which indicated that he was functioning as an accountant and was actively involved in issuance of fraudulent GST invoices, e-way bills and filing of GST returns for multiple firms. As per allegations, he was acting under the directions of Sanjeev Kumar and his statement under Section 70 CGST Act, 2017 was recorded on 13th December, 2024, wherein he stated that all his activities were carried out solely under the directions of Sanjeev Kumar and the firms were created by Sanjeev Kumar solely for the purpose of generating invoices and bills without conducting any actual business activities in most of these entities. As per the contents of the complaint, on 12th December, 2024, residential premises of Sanjeev Kumar, i.e. Flat No. 601, Grace City, Meharban Singh Ka Purwa, Kanpur Nagar was searched where rubber stamps of proprietors of multiple firms were recovered indicating the possible misuse for fraudulent transactions and further it was found that invoices and e-way bills etc. were prepared from this location. The statement of Sanjeev Kumar was recorded under Section 70 CGST Act, 2017 on 13th December, 2024, wherein he stated that he manages all the business activities of the three firms and the proprietors of these firms namely Rohit Mishra, Nitesh Kumar and Mrs. Sarika are dummy proprietors and each of them are being paid a monthly salary of Rs. 50,000/-. The complaint further reveals the search at the premises of the firms and their existence/verification and concluded that the firms operated and managed by Sanjeev Kumar availed fraudulent input tax credit of approximately Rs. 37 Crores and passed on to the tune of Rs. 50 Crores. The said detail with the names of the seven firms, their proprietors etc. is contained in a tabulated Form in para '12' of the complaint.
Lastly, it is pleaded in the complaint that the accused have contravened various provisions of CGST Act, 2017, and contains a prayer for taking cognizance of the abovementioned offences for the purpose of their prosecution and punishment. A copy of the complaint/charge-sheet dated 11.02.2025 is appended with the bail application as Annexure No. 2 and Annexure C.A.-1 in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party.
3. The applicants had applied for grant of regular bail separately before Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 21, Kanpur Nagar, however, the said concession was rejected vide orders dated 01.03.2025 and 20.01.2025, respectively. Hence these applications.
4. In response to the applications for bail, opposite party filed its counter affidavit(s) dated 17.05.2025 through their learned counsel Mr. Dhananjay Awasthi, Advocate.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant Sanjeev Kumar has argued that the complaint in all refers to the details of seven firms with their respective proprietors, but during investigation, no evidence against the applicant Sanjeev Kumar has been collected to connect him with the alleged crime. He further refers to the subject complaint to point out the proceedings of the search conducted at these firms and submitted that though the concerned persons connected with the firms were found, but they have not been arraigned as an accused in the complaint. Learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that during search at the premises of M/s Bharat Traders, one person namely Ramesh Tiwari met the officials, who revealed that he has recently started managing the affairs of the firm, and is not aware that previously who was doing this job. According to the learned Senior Counsel, one Nitesh Kumar, informed the officials that he is proprietor of the firm M/s Bharat Traders, but he stated that the affairs are being managed by Sanjeev Kumar, therefore, it is strange that even the said person has not been impleaded as an accused. Learned Senior Counsel has argued that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the confession of the applicant or the statement of other persons, who alleged involvement of the accused-applicant in commission of crime.
6. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that the complaint defines the role of accused Rohit Mishra in para 10.2, wherein it is mentioned that he also suffered a confession that he did not conduct any business activities and only issued invoices. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the said accused also mentioned that he was working with Sanjeev Kumar and the said confession may not be admissible in evidence or is at least weak kind of evidence and the case of the prosecution may not succeed. He prays for bail.
7. Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, learned counsel representing applicantViprendra Kumar Upadhyay Alias Vikash has argued that according to the complaint itself, he is the accountant and has been filing returns for various firms and this alone would not be enough to implicate him in the alleged crime, particularly when the invoices either showing purchase by the firms or supplying the material to other beneficiaries do not indicate the involvement of any of the accused person. He also prays for bail.
8. The prayer is opposed by Mr. Dhananjay Awasthi and Mr. Parv Agarwal, learned Counsel representing the opposite party-Union of India, who have argued that the applicants are the masterminds in commission of crime, who were actually conducting the affairs of seven fake firms, which were utilized for ineligible Input Tax Credit of GST. Learned Counsel for the opposite party have drawn the attention of the Court to the chart contained in para 12 to point out that in respect of each firms, different figures of availment of input tax credit, as well as passed on input tax credit are specifically mentioned, which would show that in these transactions a some of Rs. 37.03 Crores was availed as input tax credit, whereas approximately Rs. 50.14 Crores was passed on as input tax credit. According to the learned counsel for the opposite party, the offences are serious, therefore, the applicants-accused do not deserve the concession of regular bail. However, during the course of hearing, it is fairly stated by Mr. Parv Agarwal, learned counsel that the investigation in the case is complete, but trial has not yet commenced, as no pre-charge evidence has been adduced so far.
9. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that all the seven firms utilized in the alleged commission of crime for wrongfully availing/passing on input tax credit alongwith their respective proprietors have been identified, and are part of the complaint in para 12 in a tabulated form, but none of the proprietors were interrogated to ascertain their involvement in the alleged offences. According to prosecution, the summons issued to these persons have failed to evoke their response, but in the considered opinion of this Court, the complainant ought to have made a serious effort to trace these proprietors, as during the course of hearing, it is fairly stated by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the bank accounts of these firms were not examined or verified to ascertain the authorized person(s) maintaining and operating the accounts of the seven fake firms. Further, as far as the applicants are concerned, qua them, the case of the prosecution is mainly founded upon their confession, but the truthfulness of the same would be tested during trial in the light of the other prosecution evidence.
10. Admittedly, the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and the maximum punishment provided for these offences is five years imprisonment, and after the arrest, the applicants have already undergone a period of nearly seven months in judicial custody. Learned counsel for Union of India, Mr. Parv Agarwal, Advocate has fairly stated that at present, the investigation qua the applicants is complete, and the charges against the accused-applicants have not been framed so far, therefore, it becomes clear that the trial is yet to commence. Most importantly, the material prosecution witnesses are official witnesses, and at present, there does not seem any possibility of their being won over, and because the trial is not likely to conclude in near future, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the applicants, as their further detention behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose.
11. Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the bail applications are allowed, and it is ordered that the applicants–Sanjeev Dixit Alias Sanjeev Kumar, Rohit Mishra and Viprendra Kumar Upadhyay Alias Vikash be released on regular bail in the above case subject to their furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. It is further directed that the accusedapplicants shall also abide by the terms and conditions of bail, which shall be imposed by the trial court at the time of acceptance of their bail bonds and surety bonds.
Order Date :- 9.7.2025