Facts of the Case

This is a bail order arising from a fraud/forgery FIR; it does not decide any GST liability. The complainant, Umang Garg, alleged that he had engaged the applicant, Aman Gupta — a Chartered Accountant — to manage the books of his company, M/s Ulagarasan Impex Pvt Ltd. FIR No. 515/2022 was registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 IPC on the allegation that the applicant induced the complainant to purchase goods through firms controlled by the applicant that were later found to be bogus/non-existent, and that the applicant and his associates received payments including GST from the complainant without depositing the GST with the department, resulting in an alleged loss of Rs. 2,81,99,475/-. Separately, the complainant himself had earlier been arrested by the DGGI, Gurugram for GST evasion via fake Input Tax Credit claims and was released on bail after depositing Rs. 1 crore. The applicant sought anticipatory bail before the Delhi High Court after an earlier bail application had been withdrawn and a subsequent surrender-cum-bail application before the Sessions Court was dismissed as not pressed.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the applicant had made out a case for anticipatory bail given the seriousness of the fraud and GST-evasion allegations.
  2. Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant was necessary for the investigation.
  3. Whether the applicant's conduct in repeatedly withdrawing and refiling bail applications disentitled him to relief.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The applicant had cooperated with the investigation and had no role in the GST evasion allegations against the complainant, since regular accounting and return filing was handled by the complainant's own team.
  • No allegations had been made against the applicant in the bail proceedings or DGGI reply concerning the complainant's own case.
  • The dispute was essentially civil (recovery of money) and criminal process should not be used for recovery.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State submitted that in recorded telephonic conversations, the applicant admitted receiving around Rs. 3.5 crore from the complainant, and that despite joining investigation, he had not meaningfully cooperated.
  • The complainant's counsel argued the application was not maintainable given earlier withdrawals, and that the applicant had misused mediation and interim protection without any real intent to settle.
  • The prosecution submitted that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover proceeds of crime and confront the applicant with documents and statements, and to unravel a larger conspiracy involving non-existent firms used to generate fake invoices and e-way bills for GST evasion.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found that the applicant had abused the process of the Court by withdrawing his earlier anticipatory bail application with liberty to approach the Trial Court, but instead filing a surrender-cum-bail application that was later dismissed as not pressed due to his absence.
  • It held that the interim protection earlier granted was on account of a possible settlement through mediation, not on merits, and once mediation failed the application had to be considered afresh on merits.
  • Applying the Supreme Court's three factors for anticipatory bail (prima facie case, nature of offence, severity of punishment), the Court held the case involved serious allegations of forgery and GST evasion using fake invoices and e-way bills from non-existent entities, causing loss to the public exchequer, and that custodial interrogation was required to confront the applicant with evidence and unravel the larger conspiracy.
  • The anticipatory bail application was dismissed and interim protection vacated, with the Court clarifying its observations were only for deciding this application and not an expression on the merits of the case.

Important Clarification

This order does not determine anyone's actual GST liability, nor whether fake invoices were in fact issued — it only assesses whether the threshold for pre-arrest bail was met. The case is a useful reminder that GST-evasion allegations involving fabricated firms and invoices are treated as serious economic offences by courts when deciding bail, but the underlying facts remain to be proved at trial.

Sections Involved

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 (cheating, forgery, forgery of valuable security, using forged document as genuine, common intention).
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 (anticipatory bail), invoked through the present application.
  • References to GST evasion via fake Input Tax Credit under the Central/State GST framework formed the factual backdrop but were not separately adjudicated.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the Respondent-State/complainant; the anticipatory bail application was dismissed and interim protection was vacated, without any finding on the merits of the underlying GST evasion allegations.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 3408/2022 and CRL.M.A. 23659/2022
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
Date of Judgment: Reserved 23.08.2023; Delivered 06.09.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.