Facts of the Case

This is CRM-M 16325 of 2023 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, a petition under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail filed by Goyani Vijay Kumar in connection with FIR No. 0040 dated 04.02.2023, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 read with 34 IPC at Police Station Tehsil Camp, Panipat. This is a cheating/forgery case, not a GST-law case. As per the allegations, the petitioner and a co-accused received thread material worth several lakh rupees from two firms on credit, made only part payment, and when checked on the GST portal, the complainant discovered two bills raised by the petitioner (without proper price, quantity, or vehicle details) were bogus, allegedly prepared in connivance with a transport company to make it appear goods had been dispatched when they had not.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner had made out a case for anticipatory bail given the allegations of bogus billing and cheating.
  2. Whether the petitioner's conduct regarding his residential address affected his entitlement to bail.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature, arising from an ongoing business relationship since 2018 during which the entire amount had earlier been paid.

Respondent's Arguments

  • A police verification report from Surat, Gujarat, confirmed the petitioner was not residing at the address stated in the anticipatory bail petition; the accused not being present at the stated address raised concerns he was trying to mislead the Court, especially after seeking additional time to produce address proof.
  • The trial court had earlier granted interim bail, but dismissed the plea on 06.03.2023 after the petitioner failed to cooperate.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that the petitioner was not found residing at the address given in the petition, despite producing a certificate and a rent agreement, and had earlier sought time to produce address documents — conduct the Court viewed as an attempt to mislead it.
  • Given these facts and circumstances, the Court held that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary to complete the investigation and that he was not entitled to anticipatory bail.
  • The petition was dismissed accordingly.

Important Clarification

No GST question was adjudicated — the GST portal check is mentioned only as an investigative step that revealed the allegedly bogus bills. The Court's refusal of bail turned on the petitioner's misleading conduct about his residential address and the resulting need for custodial interrogation, not on any assessment of tax liability or GST compliance.

Sections Involved

  • Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 read with 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the State — the anticipatory bail application was dismissed on the ground that custodial interrogation was necessary.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Case No.: CRM-M 16325 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2023:PHHC:077960
Coram: Justice Gurbir Singh
Date: 26 May 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.