Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anupam Singla vs State Of Haryana on 28 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141397
CRM-M-51963-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
211 CRM-M-51963-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 28.10.2024
ANUPAM SINGLA ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr.G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for
grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No. 10
dated 05.01.2019 (Annexure P-1), registered under sections 420, 467,
468, 471 of I.P.C & 132 (1) B & C of HGST Act, 2017, Police Station-
Model Town, Rewari, District Rewari.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR reads as under :-
‘To, The SHO, Model Town, Rewari No. Spl. 1/DTI / dated
05.01.2019 Subject: Lodging of FIR against M/s Praveen
Industries, Proprietor Naveen Kumar and Anupam Singla, Praveen
Kumar Yadav and Charan Singh for committing fraud with the
State Centre Exchequer. On the basis of information received from
Head Office, Panchkula through e-mail ID [email protected]
regarding involvement of M/s Praveen Industries GSTIN
06BOCPK0035A1ZU with legal name Naveen Kumar, in issuing
fake invoices for the purpose of hoodwinking the Government
through Bogus Input Tax Credit without actual receipt and supply1 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-11-2024 08:16:21 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141397CRM-M-51963-2024 2
of goods by the said dealer. On the basis of above said information
I, Pradeep Yadav, Excise Taxation Officer being Proper Officer
prefer to verify the facts. Rajiv Yadav, Taxation Inspector was sent
to the given address of M/s Praveen Industries i.e. Opposite Din
Dayal Palace, Garhi Bolni Road, Rewari to physically verify the
facts. Panchnama was prepared in the presence of Sh. Sandeep
Yadav S/o Sh. Kartar Singh and Sh. Arun Kumar S/o Sh. Sh. Surjan
Singh and it was found that no Sign Board of M/s Praveen
Industries was affixed at the place as the same was removed on
26.12.2018. as per the statement of above two “Panchs” the firm
often remain closed and they have never seen any sale purchase
being done or delivery and supply of goods. From this verification
it is clear that the firm is only involved in paper transaction only
meaning thereby the firm is involved in raising fake invoices and
taking Input Tax Credit benefit on the basis of such bills. In the
course of investigation and as per information available on GST
portal, it is found that Sh. Naveen Kumar S/o Sh. Rattan Singh R/o
village Akabarpur, P.O Bithwana, Rewari having Mobile No.
9671117162, Aadhar No. 884205091613 and PAN No.
BOCPK0035A, is proprietor of M/s Praveen Industries, Opposite-
Dindayal Palace, Garhi Bolni Road, Near KLP College, Rewari.
The dealer commenced its business under GST Lac as on
03.08.2018. The dealer engaged in the business of sale and
purchase “Cotton”. In this way, it is established that the dealer M/s
Praveen Industries, GSTIN 06BOCPK0035A1ZU district Rewari is
non-existent and no-functional at the given address and the said
dealer is engaged in issuing fake tax invoices without supply of
goods leading to wrongful availment and utilization of Input Tax
Credit (ITC) and has paid no tax to the State as well as Central
Exchequer. Further, as per information available on GST portal,
the dealer M/s Praveen Industries has filed return in form GST R1
(outward supplies) for the month of October, 2018 and November,
2018 2018. Hence, has committed an offence under section132(1)
(b) (c) as he has issued invoices or bills without supply of goods or
services in violation of the provisions of HGST Act, or the rules
made thereunder leading to wrongful availment or utilization of
2 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-11-2024 08:16:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141397
CRM-M-51963-2024 3
Input Tax Credit and availed Input Tax Credit using such invoices
or bills. He also handed over the photocopy of “Cheque No.
000305” of Canara Bank, Rewari on which Account
No.2878201000263 is written and is being provided by the Bank in
printed form to the proprietor of Parveen Industries and Sh.
Naveen Kumar has signed the same cheque as proprietor. Further
the details of the above said account of M/s Parveen Industries
was obtained by Canara Bank, Rewari where in it has been clearly
mentioned that Sh. Naveen Kumar is only authorized signatory of
the firm. Perusal of the Bank Statement of the above said firm
reveals that there are heavy amount money transfers to M/s Vishal
Industries to the tune of Rs.57 lacs on 27.11.2018 and Rs.46.50
lacs on 29.11.2018 which is also a fake firm of Haryana. Apart
from this Sh. Naveen Kumar has withdrawn heavy amounts from
this account. He further states that the mobile No.8685868546
used in M/s Priya Industries, Meham, Rohtak GSTIN
06DEUPD3349C1ZJ and M/s Poonam Industries, Kanina,
Mohindergarh GSTN 06E1MPP0231G1ZE belongs to and being
used by his brother Praveen Kumar S/o Sh. Rattan Singh R/o
Village-Akbarpur, Po.-Bithwana, Rewari. His statement was
recorded in presence of independent persons “Panch’s” namely Sh.
Radhey Shyam Mittal and Sh. Naresh Kumar. Photocopies of Sh.
Naveen Kumar alongwith the above said independent witnesses
was taken after taking his statement. Mobile No.8685868546 used
by the above two firms belong to Parveen Kumar who is brother of
Sh. Naveen Kumar proprietor of Parveen Industries. Ho he was
also called and his statement was also recorded u/s 70 of the
HGST Act, 2017. Wherein he stated that he alongwith Charan
Singh, R/o Village Raliawas, Rewari got registered two firms from
CA Sh. Amit Yadav namely Priya Industries and M/s Poonam
Industries and all the relevant documents related to these two firms
were got procured by the then provided the same to CA Amit Yadav.
He further stated that Parveen Industries whose proprietor is his
brother Sh. Naveen Kumar is being operated by Sh. Anupam
Singla of Sirsa whose mobile No. is 8813000008. He further stated
that all the above named industries are used to raise invoices and
3 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-11-2024 08:16:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141397
CRM-M-51963-2024 4
to take benefit of Input Tax Credit only. No goods are being
supplied by these firms. Then, the name which appeared in the
statement of Sh. Parveen Kumar i.e. Sh. Charan Singh was called
by him and his statement was also recorded u/s 70 of HGST Act,
2017 wherein categorically stated that he alongwith Parveen
Kumar got registered many fake firms like Priya Industries and
Poonam Industries from Sh. Amit Kumar, CA. These firms are used
to issue fake invoices without making supply of goods and their
ITC is being used and hence tax evasion is done. All these firms
were registered on the directions of Anupam Singla whose mobile
No. is 8813000008. Initially this person used to call them at Shop
No.25, Sirsa Mandi but later he stated meeting them near Flyover,
Sirsa. This person was introduced to us by Sh. Ravi R/o village
Ahir Basna, Kotkasim, Rajasthan. This person used to pay us
Rs.7000/- (seven thousand) in his Bank Account of Bank of Baroda
near Airport, Delhi. He has met Anupam Singla eight to ten times.
He further stated that Parveen Kumar, manages all the money
transactions which come through these firms. He also stated that
he can take the officers to Anupam Singla and identify him.CA
Amit Kumar is the person who got registered all the above stated
firms. His statement was also taken u/s 70 of HGST Act, 2017. He
provided documents related to above said firms which were for
registration of these firms. He only got the firms registered as per
directions and documents provided by Charan Singh and Parveen
Kumar. He showing GTO of Rs.49472580/- and Rs.253860165/-
respectively. The total turnover during these two months is
Rs.303332745/- (30.33 Crore). It is found that the dealer M/s
Praveen Industries has shown outward supplies to the non existing
and non- functional dealers in the state of Haryana and also made
purchases from firms namely M/s Priya Industries GSTIN
06DEUPD3349C1ZJ Rohtak and M/s Poonam Industries
GSTIN06EIMPP0231GIZE Narnaul which are non-existing and
non-functional dealer of Haryana. To further verify the facts of the
above said firm proprietor Sh. Naveen Kumar was called in the
office to take his statement u/s 70 of HGST Act, 2017. Wherein he
has disclosed that he is proprietor of Parveen Industries whose
4 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-11-2024 08:16:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141397
CRM-M-51963-2024 5
legal name is Naveen Kumar and he has utilized the ITC of HGST
of Rs.7105075/- and CGST of Rs.7105075 and IGST of
Rs.191754/- for the month of October 2018 and November never
filed any returns related to these firms. During the course of
investigation, it is well established that the said firm M/s Praveen
Industries bearing GSTN 06ВОСРК0035A1ZU has fraudulently
obtained the GSTN registration solely for the purpose of creating a
fraud with the Govt. revenues by utilizing the accumulated bogus
input tax credit by way of paper/bogus transactions but not
actually supplying goods on ground. Hence, the said firm has
acted in contravention of provisions of section 132 (1) (b) (c) of
HGST Act, 2017 read with relevant section of the CGST Act, 2017
and IGST Act, 2017.Thus creating a loss of revenue to the state as
well as Central Govt. exchequer: IGST Rs.191754.00 SGST
-Rs.7105075.00,CGST- Rs.7105075.00, 14401904.00 On the basis
of above stated facts and circumstances I, undersigned have
reasons to conclude that the main accused behind this fraud is Sh.
Anupam Singla, R/o Shop No. 25, Sirsa Mandi, Sirsa (Haryana)
who has conspired this fraud alongwith Sh. Charan Singh S/o Sh.
Lal Singh, R/o Vill- Raliawas, District Rewari, Sh. Praveen Kumar
Yadav S/o Sh. Rattan Singh, R/o Vill- Akbarpur, Rewari and Sh.
Naveen Kumar S/o Sh. Rattan Singh, R/o Vill- Akbarpur, Rewari
Thus you are hereby requested to lodge FIR as per the direction of
worthy Excise Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, Panchkula
communicated vide memo No. Spl-2/AETC (ENF), dated
05.01.2019.sd (Pradeep Yadav) Excise Taxation Officer-cum-
Proper Officer, o/o Dy. Excise Taxation Commissioner(ST) Rewari.
Today at the Police Station. At this time, the complainant came
present at the police station and presented an application,
according to the contents of the application offence under section
420/467/468/471 I.P.C. 132 (1) (B) (C) HGST Act 2017, is made
out and F.I.R No. 10, Dt. 05.01.2019, U/s 420/467/468/471 I.P.C,
132 (1) (b) (c) HGST ACT 2017, P.S MT. RWR has been registered
and the copies of the F.I.R. are being sent to the illaqa Magistrate
and senior officers through Dak. The case file is kept with me and
5 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-11-2024 08:16:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141397
CRM-M-51963-2024 6
further investigation. Note: The duty officer in this case is Ajeet
Singh.’
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as the petitioner
was already in jail in another FIR. He submits that co-accused Parveen
Kumar, Sheetal Garg, Suresh Garg and Charan Singh, in whose name the
alleged offence under GST Act is stated to have been commissioned, have
already been granted concession of regular bail by the Trial Court. He
further submits that the petitioner was not beneficiary in any manner
directly or indirectly in the instant FIR wherein out of 40 PWs, only 8
PWs have been examined since framing of charges on 24.05.2022,
therefore, conclusion of trial would take long time.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on
advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has filed
the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record.
According to which, the petitioner is behind bars for 3 years, 2 months
and 16 days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that stating that
the petitioner is involved in other FIRs also, meaning thereby he is a
habitual offender but is not in a position to controvert the submissions
made by counsel for the petitioner. He informs the Court that in the
present FIR challan stands presented on 28.01.2022 and charges stands
framed on 24.05.2022.
6 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-11-2024 08:16:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141397
CRM-M-51963-2024 7
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be culled
out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 3
years, 2 months and 16 days, similarly situated co-accused have already
been granted concession of bail by this Court, and as per the principle of
the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the
guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case,
challan stands presented on 28.01.2022 and charges stands framed on
24.05.2022, out of 40 witnesses, 8 PWs have been examined so far which
is sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to
take considerable time and detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an
indefinite period would solve no purpose.
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court
rendered in “Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another”,
2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of
bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in
correction home is an exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is
reproduced as under:-
“2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the
presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is
believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are
instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been
placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but
that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental
postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet
of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general
rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction
home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception.
Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been7 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-11-2024 08:16:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141397CRM-M-51963-2024 8
lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being
incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to
our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the
discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise
of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of
decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the
country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether
denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the
facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be
considered is whether the accused was arrested during
investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity
to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the
investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused
person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for
placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed.
Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was
participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the
investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing
when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is
not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some
genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a
factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case.
It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused
is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if
so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The
poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an
extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice
of it by incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to
incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section
436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by
a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect
or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There8 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-11-2024 08:16:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141397CRM-M-51963-2024 9
are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an
accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the
requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that
there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and
other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman
Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5)
Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been
elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in
Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609
going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision,
reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way back
in Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that bail is
not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to
Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 wherein it was
observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
The provision for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal
interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old,
going back to colonial days.
7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should
be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely
within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though
that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in
a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the
grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of
compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.”
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the
fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of
reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the
accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in “Hussainara Khatoon
and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna”, (1980) 1 SCC
98. Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction period
9 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-11-2024 08:16:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141397
CRM-M-51963-2024 10
of the under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in view the
nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction
and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of
the petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon
the order of this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as
“Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab” decided on
02.03.2023, wherein, while referring Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the
criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the
same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the
course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in
that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other
pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial
of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all
probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the
concession of bail.
5. Decision:
In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail
and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
10 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-11-2024 08:16:22 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141397CRM-M-51963-2024 11
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
28.10.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 01-11-2024 08:16:22 :::