Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gaurav Maheshwari vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 March, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2894/2021
Gaurav Maheshwari S/o Sampat Lal Maheshwari, Aged About 31
Years, B/c Maheshwari, R/o C-71, Shanker Nagar, Pal Road,
Jodhpur. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Himanshu Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Farzand Ali, AAG - GA
Mr. Vikram Sharma, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
01/03/2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
allegation against the petitioner of creating bogus firms and
companies for the purpose of fraudulently creating and issuing
GST invoices without any sale/purchase and actual movement of
goods is absolutely false. It is argued that the petitioner has not
created any bogus firms and companies and all the transactions
done by him are as per law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since
long and charge-sheet has been filed for the offences which are
triable by Magistrate, therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on
bail.
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-2894/2021]
Per contra, Mr. Farzand Ali, AAG and learned Public
Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the bail application and
submitted that the complainant was the employee of a
construction firm of which the petitioner was the Chartered
Accountant. It is also submitted that the petitioner had obtained
the documents such as driving license, Aadhar Card, Pan Card etc
of the complainant from the said construction firm and thereafter
created bogus companies and firms in the name of the
complainant and had generated bogus GST invoices without any
sale/purchase and actual movement of goods. It is also submitted
that the complainant is a poor employee of the construction firm
and he was being cheated by the petitioner. It is also submitted
that several other cases of similar type have also been filed
against the petitioner and in all those cases charge-sheets have
been filed. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that
the conduct of the petitioner is highly objectionable as in one of
the FIRs he produced a fake order of this Court forged by him
restraining the Police to take any action against him. It is informed
that in the said case FIR was lodged and charge-sheet has been
filed against the petitioner. Mr. Farzand Ali, AAG has, therefore,
submitted that the petitioner while on bail in some of the cases,
has misused the liberty of the bail by producing a forged and fake
order of this Court forged by him, hence, looking to the conduct of
the petitioner, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the material available on record, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail
to the petitioner.
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-2894/2021]
Accordingly this bail application preferred on behalf of the
petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
98-akash/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
