High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in GST Fraud Case – Custodial Interrogation Necessary

In a significant legal development, the High Court delivered a noteworthy judgment today, denying anticipatory bail to the applicants in a case involving allegations of fraud and conspiracy. The ruling, delivered by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA on October 20, 2023, has garnered attention for its emphasis on the need for custodial interrogation and its scrutiny of contradictory and evasive stands taken by the applicants.

The case pertained to an FIR registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120B, linked to the registration and business transactions of a firm. The applicants had sought anticipatory bail, claiming no direct or indirect allegations against them in the FIR. However, the court found their assertions inconsistent and believed that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth crucial information related to the accused firm.

The judgment stated, "Custodial interrogation necessary to unearth transactions linked with the accused firm at the behest of the present applicants and entities under their control." This observation highlights the court's stance on the importance of thorough investigation in cases involving financial irregularities.

The ruling has also cited several legal provisions, including Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Sections 160 and 19 of unspecified Acts, as well as Section 132 of the GST Act, underpinning the legal framework of the case.

The decision has set a precedent for future cases involving similar allegations and has implications for the interpretation of anticipatory bail provisions in the Indian legal system. Legal experts believe that this judgment will be closely studied in the legal community for its nuanced understanding of the balance between personal liberty and the requirements of a fair investigation.

Representing the applicants were a team of seasoned advocates, including Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. V.K. Sharma, Mr. Aditya Kumar Archiya, Ms. Sakshi Sharma, and Dr. Vikas Pahal, Advocates. On the opposing side, Mr. Aman Usman, APP for the State, was supported by Insp. Dharmendra Kumar from EOW, Mandir Marg, Delhi.

This decision follows a series of recent judgments in similar cases and reinforces the judiciary's commitment to ensuring a fair and thorough investigation in matters of financial impropriety. It is expected to have a far-reaching impact on future legal proceedings in the country.

Date of Decision: 20 October 2023                                                                                                   

SHASHI KANT GUPTA   vs STATE THROUGH  INCHARGE ECONOMIC OFFICE WINGSECTION VII