Facts of the Case

This is Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9003 of 2021 before the Allahabad High Court, filed on behalf of two applicants in Case Crime No. 0047 of 2021, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. This is a commercial cheating/forgery case, not a GST case. As per the FIR, M/s Global Mode and Accessories Pvt. Ltd. was to supply face masks to Abu Dhabi, and transferred a total of Rs.4,58,60,160/- (including an initial GST amount of Rs.20,40,960/-, which was separately refunded by the seller before the transaction proceeded further) to M/s Silicon Union for the purchase, but the goods were never supplied and the contract was eventually cancelled. During the hearing, the plea for applicant no. 1 was not pressed as he had already been arrested; the Court examined only the plea of applicant no. 2, Kirti Akhilesh Mishra.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to applicant no. 2 given the nature and scale of the alleged fraud and the fact that a charge sheet had already been filed.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The applicant was innocent, with no credible evidence against her; she had earlier been granted anticipatory bail till submission of the police report and had not misused that liberty.
  • A charge sheet had since been filed and cognizance taken, and she undertook to abide by all bail conditions if granted anticipatory bail.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State and the informant's counsel opposed the plea, submitting that the accused persons were part of a larger group of fraudsters who, without any intention to supply the goods, induced the company to make 100% advance payment and thereby cheated it of over Rs.3 crore under a pre-planned conspiracy, as borne out by the documentary and oral evidence collected during investigation.

Court Order / Findings

  • Relying on the Supreme Court's guidance in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, on the factors relevant to anticipatory bail — nature and gravity of the offence, role attributed to the applicant, and risk of tampering or absconding — the Court held that, without expressing any opinion on the merits, it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial.
  • The anticipatory bail application of applicant no. 2 was rejected.

Important Clarification

No GST question was decided in this order — the GST amount initially charged on the transaction was, on the prosecution's own case, refunded to the buyer, and features only as one line item in the larger sum allegedly misappropriated. This is purely a cheating/forgery bail order, decided on well-established anticipatory-bail principles.

Sections Involved

  • Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the State/informant — the anticipatory bail application of applicant no. 2 was rejected, expressly without any opinion on the merits of the underlying cheating case.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9003 of 2021
Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:135096
Coram: Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava
Date: 5 July 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.