Facts of the Case

The applicant, Amit Tomar, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Case Crime No. 0195 of 2021 registered at Police Station Salempur, District Bulandshahar. The prosecution alleged that the applicant obtained a GST registration using documents relating to a firm but did not conduct any genuine business activities. Instead, he allegedly generated fake invoices and claimed fictitious business transactions amounting to ₹955.16 lakhs, thereby causing a loss of ₹171.93 lakhs to the State exchequer.

The applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated, asserting that illegal gratification had been demanded from him. He also pointed out that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of about seven months. It was further argued that the GST department had not issued any notice against him, that he was a bona fide businessman with no criminal antecedents, and that he had cooperated during the investigation and was willing to continue doing so.

The State opposed the anticipatory bail application, emphasizing the substantial financial loss allegedly caused to the State due to the applicant's actions.

 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be granted in a case involving allegations of GST fake billing and substantial loss to the State exchequer.
  2. Whether the applicant's contentions regarding delay in lodging the FIR, absence of departmental notice, and lack of criminal antecedents justified the grant of anticipatory bail.
  3. Whether the seriousness of the alleged economic offence outweighed the grounds urged by the applicant for pre-arrest protection.

 

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The applicant was falsely implicated in the case.
  • Illegal gratification had allegedly been demanded from him.
  • The FIR was lodged after a delay of approximately seven months without any satisfactory explanation.
  • No notice had been issued by the GST department against the applicant.
  • He was a bona fide businessman and had committed no offence.
  • The applicant had no criminal antecedents.
  • He had cooperated during the investigation and undertook to continue cooperating in future proceedings.

 

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The prosecution argued that the applicant had obtained GST registration and used it to generate fake invoices without carrying out genuine business activities.
  • By showing fictitious business transactions worth ₹955.16 lakhs, the applicant allegedly caused a loss of ₹171.93 lakhs to the State exchequer.
  • Considering the gravity of the economic offence and the substantial financial loss caused to the Government, the applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail.

 

Court Order / Findings

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.

The Court observed that the allegations indicated a serious economic offence resulting in a substantial loss of ₹171.93 lakhs to the State exchequer. It further held that the submissions made on behalf of the applicant largely related to matters which could appropriately be considered while deciding a regular bail application and not while exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the Court found no sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the application as being devoid of merit. It also clarified that the observations made in the order were confined only to the decision of the anticipatory bail application and would not prejudice either the trial or any subsequent regular bail application.

 

Important Clarification

  • Serious allegations involving fake GST billing and significant loss to the State exchequer may weigh against the grant of anticipatory bail.
  • Grounds relating to appreciation of evidence or other defences are ordinarily matters to be considered at the stage of regular bail or trial.
  • Observations made while deciding an anticipatory bail application shall not influence the merits of the trial or any regular bail proceedings.

 

Sections Involved

  • Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Anticipatory Bail
  • Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Cheating
  • Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Forgery of Valuable Security, Will, etc.
  • Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Forgery for the Purpose of Cheating
  • Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Using Forged Document as Genuine


Link to download the order -

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1782968875_79compressed.pdf

 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.