Gujarat High Court
Maheshdan Prabhudan Langa vs State Of Gujarat on 6 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1199/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE
CHARGESHEET) NO. 1199 of 2025
==========================================================
MAHESHDAN PRABHUDAN LANGA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJ YAGNIK(1372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
VEDANT J RAJGURU(9375) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS HARDIKA VYAS(11450) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR MITESH AMIN, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL with MR HARDIK
DAVE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR with MS SHRUTI S PATHAK, APP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 06/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for
regular bail in connection with F.I.R.
No.11208055240280 of 2024 registered with
DCB Police Station, District Rajkot for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 465,
467, 468, 471, 474 and 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
2. Learned advocate Mr. A. J. Yagnik appearing
for the applicant has submitted that the
offence alleged in the F.I.R. had taken
place between 01.06.2023 to 30.09.2023 for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1199/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
which the F.I.R. has been lodged on
27.11.2024. The delay caused in lodging
F.I.R. has not been explained satisfactorily
by the prosecution. The applicant has been
arrested in connection of the present
offence on 20.12.2024 and since then, he is
in custody.
2.1 Learned Advocate has further submitted that
the applicant herein was running a firm viz.
M/s. D.A.Enterprise. The applicant is ready
and willing to repay the amount of Input Tax
Credit, which was wrongfully availed by the
present applicant, as alleged in the FIR.
2.2 Learned Advocate has further submitted the
present applicant is alleged to have
wrongfully availed Input Tax Credit of
Rs.8,50,788/-. The maximum punishment
prescribed for the offence alleged against
the present applicant under the provisions
of GST is imprisonment for 1 year. The
applicant has been arrested in connection
with the present offence on 20.12.2024 and
has also already undergone the imprisonment
for almost 1.5 months.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1199/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
2.3 Learned Advocate has further submitted that
it is alleged against the present applicant
that he had passed on the benefit of Input
Tax Credit, and therefore, the offence
alleged against the present applicant would
be punishable under Section 122 of the GST
Act. The applicant has never been asked to
pay the dues, and therefore, the applicant
has not paid though he had shown willingness
to deposit the amount before the concerned
Trial Court as well as before the concerned
Sessions Court. However, the same has not
been considered by the Courts below. The
applicant is still ready and willing to
deposit the said amount.
2.4 Learned Advocate has further submitted that
as per the law laid down by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court creating false bills
would not amount to forgery, and therefore,
none of the offences punishable under the
provisions of IPC are made out against the
present applicant. The applicant has been
sought to be arraigned in the present
offence only on the basis of the statements
of the co-accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1199/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
2.5 Learned Advocate has further submitted that
the arrest of the present applicant has been
politically motivated, as the present
applicant is a Journalist. He, therefore,
submitted to allow the present application
and enlarge the present applicant on bail
subject to suitable conditions.
3. In support of his submissions, learned
Advocate for the applicant has relied upon
the following judgments:-
1. Varun Rakesh Bansal Vs. State of Gujarat
reported in (2022) SCC Online Guj 2587.
2. Harsh Vinodbhai Patel Vs. State of
Gujarat passed by this Court in Criminal
Misc. Application No.20751 of 2023.
3. Director of General Goods and Service
Tax Intelligence, Ahmedabad Vs. Harsh
Vinodbhai Patel passed by Apex Court in
SLP (Criminal) Diary No.21287 of 2024.
4. KGN Enterprise Ltd. Through Babulal
Jethalal Hirani & Ors. Vs. State of
Gujarat reported in 2017 (0) AIJEL-HC
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1199/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
247325.
5. Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of
Bihar & Anr. reported in (2009) 8 SCC
6. Prakash Ramchandra Barot & Ors. Vs.
State of Gujarat passed by this Court in
Criminal Misc. Application No.2780 of
2011.
7. Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Buruau of
Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC
8. Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation & Anr. reported in
(2022) 10 SCC 51.
9. P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement reported in (2020) 13 SCC
10. Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.
reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
11. Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in 2024 SCC
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1199/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
Online SC 2550.
12. Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement reported in 2024 SCC Online
SC 1920.
13. Deepak Singhal Vs. Union of India
reported in 2024 MPHC-IND 26187.
4. Learned AAG appearing for the respondent-
State has opposed the present application,
inter alia, contending that apart from a
fraud, as regard wrongfully availing the
benefit of Input Tax Credit, an element of
money laundering is also involved in the
present offence. One firm had been created
on the basis of forged rent agreement and
other forged documents. Various firms
including the firms belonging to the present
applicant had purchased fake invoices
without entering into any business with the
said firm and on the basis of such fake
invoices, the Input Tax Credit of the huge
amount had been claimed by the accused
persons involved in the present offence.
4.1 Learned AAG has further submitted that the
applicant is having several other
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1199/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
antecedents for commission of offence
similar in nature and the offence is
pertaining to GST for which separate F.I.R.s
have been lodged against the present
applicant. He has further submitted that the
allegations which have been charged, are
serious in nature and looking to the facts
as well as the allegations made against the
applicant, no discretion should be
exercised.
4.2 Learned AAG has further submitted that
making a false claim itself is an act of
forgery. He has further submitted that the
applicant herein was very much aware about
the fact that the firm was a bogus firm and
the invoices, which were purchased from it
were also fake and despite the said
knowledge, the applicant herein had availed
the benefit of Input Tax Credit on the basis
of those invoices. The aspect of repayment
of the amount of Input Tax Credit availed
wrongfully would not absorb the applicant of
criminal liability.
4.3 Learned AAG further submits that the amount
of Input Tax Credit, which had been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1199/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
deposited in the accounts of the accused
persons had been transferred to a different
accounts, which was withdrawn from the said
accounts and was sent to 10 different
persons via Ganesh Aangdiya of Bhavnagar.
Thus, there is a reason to believe that the
money in question must have been laundered
out of India.
4.4 Learned AAG further submits that the
investigation so far carried out indicates
that 1500 fake invoices have been found to
be used for commission of the fraud in
question. There are other offences of
similar nature registered against the
applicant.
4.5 Learned AAG further submit that the offence
alleged in the FIR has a wide spread
fallout. The investigation of the offence is
still in progress. He, therefore, submitted
to dismiss the present application.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Hardika Vyas appearing
for the respondent no.3 has opposed the
grant of present application inter-alia
contending that the applicant had played a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1199/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
vital role in commission of offence and
therefore, the present application may not
be allowed.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and perused the documents produced
on record.
7. From the record it appears that apart from
the present F.I.R., several other F.I.R.
appears to have been lodged against the
present applicant. Learned advocate for the
applicant has sought to rely upon the order
passed by this Court dated 09.01.2025 passed
in Criminal Misc. Application No.22792 of
2024 wherein this Court had exercised
discretion in favour of the present
applicant in the F.I.R. which was pertaining
to similar offence registered against the
applicant. However, in the said case, the
applicant was arrested on 08.10.2024 and had
undergone imprisonment for a period of three
months. The said F.I.R. was registered on
07.10.2024 and investigation in the said
case was virtually over. In the present
case, the F.I.R. has been lodged on
27.11.2024. The investigation of the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1199/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
offence is still in progress. Moreover,
after registration of the F.I.R., wherein
the applicant has been considered for grant
of bail by this Court, several other offence
of similar nature have been registered
against him.
8. Having regard to this aspect, this Court is
not inclined to exercise its judicial
discretion in favour of the applicant at
this stage. The application is dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
NABILA
