Allahabad High Court
Krishnamohan Vishvkarama vs Uoi Min. Of Finance Revenue Directorate ... on 9 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20055
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1316 of 2025
Applicant :- Krishnamohan Vishvkarama
Opposite Party :- Uoi Min. Of Finance Revenue Directorate Gen. Of Gst Intelligence Lko. Thru. Its Sr. I. Officer
Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Tewari,Fazal Haider Zaidi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Digvijay Nath Dubey
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for Directorate General of GST Intelligence- opposite party and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Complaint Case No.2553 of 2025, DGGI Case No.DGGI/INV/GST/3169/2024-GR-H, under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) CGST Act 2017, P.S. DGGI, District Lucknow.
3. As per contents of complaint filed under Sections 210 and 223 (1)(a) of the BNSS 2023 with regard to offence committed under Section 132(1)(b) & (c) Central Goods & Services Act, 2017, the applicant stands accused of being a master-mind for creating a nexus of many fake firms to pass on fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) to various recipients due to which simultaneous search was undertaken unearthing various documents indicating complicity of applicant in creation of fake firms for the said purpose. The complaint as indicates that applicant is the main person responsible for filing returns under the Act.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated on the charges levelled against him and that there is no evidence whatsoever of applicant being instrumental in creation of fake firms. It is submitted that in fact as per complaint itself, the only role attributable to him is that of filing Income Tax and GST returns of his client. It is also submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 14.11.2024 and except for filing of complaint, no further steps have been taken in trial. It is also submitted that even as per the list submitted, there are 11 witnesses and therefore there is no hope of early conclusion of trial.
5. Learned counsel has adverted to judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Another; (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.
6. Learned counsel for opposite party has opposed bail application with the submission that as per evidence collected during the course of raids in various offices, complicity of applicant in creation of fake firms for the purposes of availing fraudulent Input Tax Credit is clearly made out. It is however admitted that maximum sentence with regard to sections imputed against applicant is five years. He however does not have any information with regard to current status of trial.
7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
8. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that applicant stands accused of creation of fake firms for the purposes of availing Input Tax Credit fraudulently. The aspect of whether applicant's signatures or his being instrumental in creation of fake firms is subject matter of evidence. It is admitted between learned counsel for parties that maximum sentence in the sections imputed against applicant is being only five years, applicant is under incarceration since 14.11.2024. It is evident that investigation has already concluded.
9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation & Another; (2021) 10 SCC 773 with regard to economic offences has held as follows:
"43. In the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SC/0851/2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined as under:-
"66. What is left for us now to discuss are the economic offences. The question for consideration is whether it should be treated as a class of its own or otherwise. This issue has already been dealt with by this Court in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, MANU/SC/1670/2019 : (2020) 13 SCC 791, after taking note of the earlier decisions governing the field. The gravity of the offence, the object of the Special Act, and the attending circumstances are a few of the factors to be taken note of, along with the period of sentence. After all, an economic offence cannot be classified as such, as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the court to categorise all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis. Suffice it to state that law, as laid down in the following judgments, will govern the field:-
Precedents
? P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, MANU/SC/1670/2019 : (2020) 13 SCC 791:
23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of "grave offence" and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provide so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.
? Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, MANU/SC/1375/2011 : (2012) 1 SCC 40:
"39. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both the courts have refused the request for grant of bail on two grounds : the primary ground is that the offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious involving deep-rooted planning in which, huge financial loss is caused to the State exchequer; the secondary ground is that of the possibility of the accused persons tampering with the witnesses. In the present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document. The punishment for the offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration.
40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.
xxxxxxxxx
46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI."
10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that as yet trial has not yet commenced after conclusion of investigation and maximum sentence being only a five years, with the aspect of applicant's involvement in creation of fake firms being subject matter of evidence, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
11. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
12. Let applicant, Krishnamohan Vishvkarama, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 9.4.2025
Subodh/-
