In a matter arising from the Punjab Taxation Department’s ongoing crackdown on fraudulent GST transactions and bogus billing practices, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted interim anticipatory bail to Manish Kumar, a data entry operator accused in a multi-crore tax evasion case. The Court’s order comes in CRM-M-26841-2025 (O&M), a petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the successor legislation to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The FIR in question, No. 38 dated April 10, 2025, registered at Police Station Cantt., Ferozepur, invoked Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (I.T. Act), involving allegations of forgery, cheating, criminal conspiracy, and wilful misrepresentation of tax information.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Nitin Sherwal and Satish Goel contended that the very initiation of criminal proceedings was procedurally flawed. They argued that “there is no provision in I.T. Act for registration of FIR,” and further stressed that the offence under Section 277 is “non-cognizable by virtue of Section 279-A of I.T. Act.”
The counsel also submitted that the petitioner, being merely a Class 12 pass data entry operator, was not a Chartered Accountant and had no authority or expertise to undertake such alleged manipulations independently. In the absence of a private complaint or prima facie incriminating documents, the defence submitted that the FIR was unwarranted and premature.
Issuing notice of motion for July 16, 2025, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks, stating:
“In the event of arrest, the petitioner will be admitted to interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Investigating/Arresting Officer.”
The Bench drew upon established precedent, citing decisions including Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2010), and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), to reinforce the principle that arrest should not be mechanical where custodial interrogation is not required.
In a safeguard against procedural non-compliance by the authorities, the Court clarified:
“If the Arresting Officer does not permit the petitioner to join the investigation, he would appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate, who would then summon the Arresting Officer and direct him to join the petitioner in the investigation, in terms of the order of this Court.”
The Bench also invoked Section 482(2) of the BNSS (corresponding to the erstwhile Section 438(2) CrPC), mandating the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation and adherence to bail conditions.
The anticipatory bail plea comes against the backdrop of extensive enforcement action reported by Punjab’s Finance Minister Harpal Singh Cheema earlier this week. The Taxation Department, supported by tech modules developed with IIT Hyderabad, has unearthed bogus transactions exceeding ₹1,549 crore this fiscal year. Fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) claims worth ₹108.79 crore have been blocked, with major irregularities surfacing in gold and coal trades across Ludhiana, Mohali, and Mandi Gobindgarh.
Notably, Cheema had announced that enforcement teams blocked ₹21 crore in ITC by exposing fake invoices of ₹900 crore related to gold transactions in Ludhiana alone. The scope of the investigation suggests a well-orchestrated network of shell trading entities and false invoicing mechanisms used to generate unlawful tax credits.
The High Court has clarified that its present observations are strictly confined to the question of interim bail and “shall not be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court.” The trial court has been directed to proceed independently and adjudicate on merits, in accordance with law.
The matter will now return for further consideration on July 16, 2025. Meanwhile, investigative authorities are expected to take statements and verify the extent of the petitioner’s involvement within the timeline stipulated by the Court.
Case Title: Manish Kumar v. State Of Punjab
Case no.: CRM-M-26841-2025 (O&M)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Mr. Nitin Sherwal, Adv. Mr. Satish Goel
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G.
Picture Source :
