ORDER
Sumeet Goel, J.- Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in complaint bearing No.COMA/53/2023 titled as Senior Intelligence Officer v. Md. Shamsad Saifi etc. registered under Section 132 of Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 before the Court of ACJM, Gurugram, District Gurugram.
2. The gravamen of the complaint in question is that on the basis of of intelligence developed by officers of GZU and subsequent data analysis, it was found that the entities M/s. Jay Maa Enterprises (GSTIN: 06BQSPN759SLIZP) and M/s. National Sales Corporation (GSTIN: 06JLEPS8377CIZL), both registered at the same address — Shop No. 159/1, Basai Road Village, Sector-9B, Gurugram, Haryana — were non-existent and operating as fake firms. The registered address was found to be untraceable during verification. These entities had fraudulently availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) from M/s. Lata Sales, which itself was a non-existent firm. Acting on this information, verification was carried out at the premises of M/s. Techno Electrical & Sales, registered at F-98, Upper Ground Floor, West Jawahar Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. The premises were found non-existent, confirming that M/s. Techno Electrical & Sales was also a fake firm. It was found that M/s. Techno Electrical & Sales had only filed GSTR-1 and passed on fake ITC amounting to Rs. 98.09 crore. All this fraudulent ITC was shown to have been passed on to M/s. Lata Sales, which shared the same registration address. Subsequently, M/s. Lata Sales passed on fake ITC amounting to Rs. 69.59 crore to 44 different recipient firms, as listed in paragraph 5 of the complaint. Verification of these 44 recipient firms revealed that most were either nonexistent or had proprietors who were fraudulently appointed. These entities had not only availed fraudulent ITC but had also further passed it on to other firms across the country, perpetuating the tax credit fraud. In an effort to identify the individuals behind the racket, major outward transactions from the fake firms were scrutinized. This led to the identification of one active and existing beneficiary — M/s. Aisha Enterprises, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh — which had availed ITC of Rs. 1,26,154/- from M/s. Lata Sales. A visit was conducted at the premises of M/s. Aisha Enterprises on 14.09.2020. During the visit, the proprietor, Mr. Bajruddin, in his statement dated 14.09.2020, admitted to the practice of receiving invoices without actual supply of goods (commonly referred to as ‘goodless invoices’). He further disclosed that he had dealt with the petitioner (herein), residing at 3rd Floor, House No. 268, Gali No. 6, West Guru Angad Nagar, opposite Mohan Park, Laxmi Nagar, for arranging such invoices in the name of M/s. Lata Sales. Mr. Bajruddin stated that payments were made to the bank account of M/s. Lata Sales and were later returned to him in cash by the petitioner (herein) after deducting a 9% commission on the total invoice value. As Mr. Bajruddin consistently identified the petitioner (herein) as the key person behind these fake firms, efforts were made to locate him. He was eventually traced to his residence at 4th Floor, H.No. 268, Gali No. 6, West Angad Nagar, opposite Mohan Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, on 08.10.2020. During the search, various incriminating documents were found in his possession, indicating his central role in creating and operating the fake firms. These documents were resumed under a panchnama dated 08.10.2020, drawn on the spot. The petitioner’s statement was recorded on 08.10.2020 pursuant to summons issued the same day. In his statement, he admitted that in the year 2018, on the advice of Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, he had created M/s. Techno Electrical & Sales and M/s. Lata Sales solely for the purpose of issuing fake invoices without any actual supply of goods, thereby facilitating the fraudulent passing of ITC. He further stated that in 2019, he sold both firms to Mr. Danish Malik for a sum of Rs. 3 lakh and handed over the GST login credentials. He also mentioned that in May 2019, he joined Mr. Danish Malik on a salary basis to continue assisting in the operations by delivering fake invoices and managing cash transactions. On these set of allegations, the complaint in question was filed against the petitioner.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. He has further urged that the petitioner was earlier granted concession of ad-interim bail on 07.10.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner was again afforded concession of interim bail vide order dated 16.12.2023. Learned Senior Counsel has further urged that the petitioner was extended the concession of interim regular bail on 03.04.2024. He has further iterated that the case in hand pertains to a complaint wherein all the witnesses are officials and, thus, there is no chance for tampering with the evidence. Hence, regular bail is prayed for.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner by arguing that allegations raised against the petitioner are direct/serious in nature and in case the petitioner is extended the concession of regular bail, there is all the likelihood that he may flee from the process of justice as also interfere with the investigation as also intimidate the witnesses. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has further urged that the petitioner has not cooperated in the trial proceedings
5. I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.
6. The petitioner was initially arrested on 09.10.2020 whereinafter he was released on bail on account of the Covid-19 pandemic. He was, thereafter, again taken into custody on 01.05.2023. The petitioner is on interim regular bail since 03.04.2024 and nothing substantiate has brought forth to indicate that the petitioner has misused the concession of interim regular bail. The case in hand pertains to a complaint wherein all the witnesses are officials and, thus, there is no chance for tampering with the evidence. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on a specific query put by this Court has responded that there is no other case registered against the petitioner. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.
Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit, before the concerned trial Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail. In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.
8. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
9. Ordered accordingly.
10. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
11. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.