1 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1337 of 2020 Applicant :- Govind Agarwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Prakash Mathur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Prakash, learned counsel for applicant, and Sri B.A. Khan, learned A.G.A. for State. 2. This anticipatory bail application (u/s 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.0864 of 2018 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 120B IPC & S.122 GST, Police Station Kosi Kalan, District Mathura , during pendency of investigation. 3. As per FIR which has been lodged by Assistant Commissioner, Sri Gulab Chand, Proprietor of Govind Enterprises, namely Govind Agarwal (applicant) son of Sri Ajay Agrawal, resident of Rajpal Nagar Colony, N.H. Ranchi Bangar, Baad, Mathura had obtained GST Registration No.09CBIPA0305H1Z7 on 09.03.2018 from Commercial Department, Divisional Office, Kosi Kalan Mathura through GST Portal for purposes of business of packing material. At time of making said application, he had declared his I.D. e-mail address as advocateonlyforgst@gmail.com and mobile no. 8533952295. At time of obtaining registration by applicant, he had shown his address as main business place as first floor, N.H. in front of Anaj Mandi Gate No.1, Kosi Kalan which was accommodation on rent taken from Mahavir Singh, son of Ramesh Chand, resident of Haripura, Kosi Kalan at rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and in that regard deed of rent was also executed and receipt no. 200041391433 dated 17.02.2017 was 2 also issued in that regard by Dakshiranchal Electricity Distribution Nigam Ltd. which was uploaded on portal. From said uploaded payment of electricity bill, it was evident that at time of registration, applicant has shown his business being run from said address, which place was owned by first party namely, Mahavir Singh and second party was applicant, between them rent agreement was executed, but place meant for being signed by witnesses were left vacant. On 27.09.2018 enquiry was conducted by Sri Narendra Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Kosi Kalan as well as Sri Gulab Chand, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Kosi Kalan, Sushree Isha Gautam, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mathura and this fact came to light that on given address no board of firm was affixed and said place had room on first floor measuring 18 ft. x 20 ft. only. owner of house Mahavir Singh disclosed that on 1.3.2018 he had given said accommodation to applicant on rent at rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and its registration was also got done by him by name of Govind Enterprise and that he was advocate also in firm. In said room, no documents/books related to firm were found except one computer and laptop and printer were kept which Sri Mahavir Singh disclosed that they did not have any data relating to Govind Enterprise and also stated that there were several forms related to his advocacy. At time of raid, two persons were found working on computer who disclosed that they were working in respect of accountancy of said advocate and that there was no place/go-down to keep stock. entire work of Govind Enterprise used to be done from its Kanpur located branch/go- down and that all related books of account were kept at branch located at Kanpur. Therefore, simultaneously, Chandrashekhar, Deputy Commissioner Range-C, Commercial 3 Tax also conducted raid/inspection of Kanpur Branch of said firm on 27.9.2018 and at that time Mukesh Sharma son of Ram Kumar Sharma was found present, who was labour contractor of Agarwal Industries. At time of inspection, owner of said flat Sri Indrapal was also contacted, who disclosed that said shop was taken by him on rent through one Dharmendra Gurjar son of Kali Charan, resident of Malampur Bhind, M.P. Dharmendra Gurjar has disclosed that he had taken accommodation on rent at instance of Accountant Manish at rate of Rs.700/- per month and that rent was being realized since 15.09.2018. Further, it was stated that Dharmendra Gurjar, who was Munim in firm who used to get Rs.10,000/- per month salary. Further, he disclosed that he did not know owner of firm namely, Govind Agarwal (applicant) and that he was sent by Ram Niwas Gurjar of Bhind to work there, who runs Pitambar Transport. said shop was measuring 10 ft. x 12 ft. and had old locks on it which had not been opened since long, right from date said shop was taken on rent and that since then only one truck had been unloaded there which contained 108 Gattas Panni Plastic which was received from Noida, Sector 57, which weighed about 30 kgs. shop was found closed as locks were put on it. When account books were demanded, it was told that bill parchas were with Accountant who had gone to Mathura. No account books could be found and it was said that last time consignment had been received week ago. Two persons were said to be working there. At time of inspection, owner of shop met said Commissioner who was told that he had not entered into written agreement nor had he given his shop to any person by name of Govind Agarwal running Govind Enterprises. He had given said shop on rent to one Dharmendra Gurjar only for month but what does he do, he had no knowledge and shop 4 was locked, keys of which is with Accountant. At time of registration, applicant had declared his saving bank account no.04672121008171 in Oriental Bank of Commercial village and post Auragabad, District Mathura. 4. Further, on said date applicant had taken inward supply of paper laminated foil, printed plastic laminated pouch, printed paper aluminum etc. worth Rs.35,02,28,642.00 while by way of outward supply only two e-way bills were generated in favour of seller of Rs.1,64,334.00 of Motaz Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Bhind, M.P. GST no. 23AACCM8173H1ZG and Rs.14,94,774.00 of Motaz Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. GST No.is 9AACCM8173H1Z6. Further, it is mentioned in FIR that despite such huge quantity having been purchased through outward supply, no e-way bill was down loaded. In enquiry, it was found that Govind Enterprises had supplied material worth Rs.35,02,28,642.00 through 295 e-way bill as per rules which were supplied to companies/traders. bills of applicant s firm were generated from address given of Kanpur in name of supplier company/traders i.e. Motaz Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (U.P.) and several other suppliers who have been named in FIR along with GST Registration number. During enquiry, it transpired that nature of account of applicant s firm was saving bank account which was opened in Oriental Bank of Commerce, village and post Aurangabad, Mathura which appeared account no. 04672121008171. When said account was enquired then it was found that same was being run from 27.8.2009 and till 16.11.2018 only Rs.6448.00 were found available in that account and that between 27.8.2009 to 26.11.20018, total amount deposited was shown as Rs.3,73,389.00 and whole outlet is shown worth Rs.4,00,017.00. After enquiry of this account, it has been concluded that economic condition of applicant s firm 5 was extremely limited for last ten years and that such huge business could not have been performed by him and that no big money transaction reflected from said account and therefore it was sufficient to hold that applicant along with some unknown persons had conspired to effect offence of theft. After enquiriy conducted, it emerges that in another account existing in name of accused-applicant, through statement of account, it came into light that Bank by name of DD Nagar, Gwalior, M.P. was being run and in said bank, applicant after giving his address as Govind Enterprise, New Mahavir Colony, Birla Nagar Murar, Gwalior got opened account in HDFC Bank, therefore, it is clear that account which was got opened in HDFC after giving address of different bank branch would reflect that address of bank branch was mentioned as HDFC, DD Nagar Abhilasha Bhawan house No.1, R.J. Puram Mahrautra Firm, Bhind Road, Gwalior, M.P.-474020. When said bank account was inspected, it was found that applicant had deposited sum of Rs.9,39,07,715/- between 11.07.2018 to 16.11.20018 and details of same have been mentioned in FIR. said account reveals that applicant was running his business by name of Govind Enterprises from address 47, Rajpal Nagar Colony, N.H-2, Rachi Bangar, Baad, Mathura then why he felt it necessary to open another account in State of M.P. Further, whatever amount he received after sale to other traders, entire transaction happened in State of U.P. and it is not clear as to under what circumstances, he deposited such huge amount in other State while there was facility available of Internet Banking, RTGS as well as NEFT. deposit of huge amount by third trader and others in State of M.P. shows that in collusion with some unknown person, conspiracy was hatched for evasion of tax. After enquiry into units of applicant s firm and from 6 bank statement and other details mentioned on GSTN Porter, it appears that applicant was not running his business in accordance with rules at his given premises on 27.9.22018 as neither the board of firm was installed there nor any account books were found and whatever sale and purchase had been shown through papers, same appeared to have been done in collusion with some unknown firm and person in order to avoid tax payment. Further, it is mentioned that business is being shown to have been run from two places, and if those places be taken into consideration particularly their geographical situation as well as their size, it was not possible to do such huge business. During enquiry, at Fazalganj Branch, owner of property clearly admitted that neither he knew applicant nor had he given his premises for running business by name of Govind Enterprises. Therefore, when said declared branch never existed, question does not arise of keeping account books there and it was found that Govind Enterprises did not exist at its main place of business rather purchased items appeared to have been sold somewhere else on basis of bogus document. Further, it is mentioned that bank account of applicant s firm is saving bank account which got opened in Oriental Bank of Commerce, village post Aurangabad, Mathura, account number of which is 04672121008171, which proves that economic capability of applicant was extremely limited because total balance amount in said account stood at Rs.6848/- only and that no transaction was done from said account. Therefore, there was sufficient basis to come to conclusion that applicant was either working in collusion with some unknown firm/person or was working as agent and in collusion with some person as thus has given effect to tax evasion. Further huge amount having been deposited at HDFC Bank, Gwalior, M.P. would indicate that after 7 collusion with some unknown firm/person, conspiracy was hatched to commit tax evasion. According to registration, applicant s firm appears to have been registered for purchase of plastic laminated foil, printed plastic laminated pouch, printed paper Aluminium etc. and from e-way bill down loaded by applicant, article appears to have been purchased from Motaz Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Noida and when survey was done of said company, it came to light that production was being done of high quality printing packing material by Motaz Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. It is worth noting that applicant s firm had purchased through e- way bills from Motaz Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Bhind, M.P., GST No . 09ZAACCM8173H1Z6 and said printed packing material was to tune of Rs.17,55,80,481.00 said packing material was being used by production companies, therefore, same was not worth being sold in open market and it made absolutely clear that firm of applicant, in collusion with others, was involved in tax evasion activities and hence offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120B IPC and SGST/CGST Act have been committed by him. 5. Submission made by learned counsel for applicant is that in spite of allegedly tax evasion, till date, no case has been made out under U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act and Rules 2017 or under Central Goods and Services Tax 2017 or IGST Act, 2017. Further without deciding as to whether applicant had evaded tax or not, lodging of FIR was improper that applicant had contravened provisions of sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120-B IPC. FIR has been lodged on 30.11.2018 while contravention of provision of said section is said to have been made on 27.9.2018 which is highly belated without any proper explanation. applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He has apprehension of his arrest. If released on bail he 8 would not misuse liberty and would co-operate with investigation. 6. By filing supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for applicant has drawn attention to rent deed executed between Mahavir Singh and applicant which is annexed at pages 6-7 of S.A. relating to one office in front of Anaj Mandi Gate No.1, NH-2, 1st Floor, Kosi Kalan area 12 ft x 16 ft given on rent to applicant at rate of Rs.1,000/- per month for period of 11 months. He has also drawn attention towards pages 8-9 of said supplementary affidavit which is agreement to take property on rent executed between Indrapal Yadav and applicant's firm through applicant by which house no. 101, Fazalganj, Kanpur Nagar is shown to have been given on rent at rate of Rs.7,000/- per month to applicant. He has also drawn attention to page 12 to 36 which are being stated to be papers pertaining to GST amount. He has drawn attention towards pages 46 onward which are stated to be GST return filed by applicant's firm and on basis of documentary evidence, he has stated that no amount of tax evasion has been assessed by prosecution side and yet FIR has been lodged which is illegal and in such situation he needs to be granted anticipatory bail. 7. Additional Session Court 11 has erroneously dismissed anticipatory bail application of applicant vide order dated 18.10.2019, which needs to be set aside. He has placed reliance upon judgment rendered in Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal, 2011 (266) E.L.T. 294 (S.C.) in which reliance has been placed on para nos. 43 and 46 which are quoted here-in- below; 43.We find substance in submission of Mr. Sharan.There may appear to be some conflict between views in case of Standard Charted Bank (supra) and L.R. Melwani (supra) holding that adjudication proceeding and criminal proceeding are two independent proceedings and both can go on simultaneously and finding in 9 adjudication proceeding is not binding on criminal proceeding and judgments of this Court in case of Uttam Chand (supra), G.L.Didwania (supra) and K.C. Builders (supra) wherein this Court had taken view that when there is categorical finding in adjudication proceeding exonerating person which is binding and conclusive, prosecution cannot be allowed to stand. Judgments of this Court are not to be read as statute and when viewed from that angle there does not seem any conflict between two sets of decisions. It will not make any difference on principle that latter judgments pertain to cases under theIncome Tax Act. ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows :- (i) Adjudication proceeding and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously; (ii)Decision in adjudication proceeding is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii)Adjudication proceeding and criminal proceeding are independent in nature to each other; (iv)The finding against person facing prosecution in adjudication proceeding is not binding on proceeding for criminal prosecution; (v) Adjudication proceeding by Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by competent court of law to attract provisions of Article 20 (2) of Constitution or Section 300 of Code of Criminal Procedure; (vi)The finding in adjudication proceeding in favour of person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon nature of finding. If exoneration in adjudication proceeding is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and (vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and person held innocent, criminal prosecution on same set of facts and circumstances can not be allowed to continue underlying principle being higher standard of proof in criminal cases. In our opinion, therefore, yardstick would be to judge as to whether allegation in adjudication proceeding as well as proceeding for prosecution is identical and exoneration of person concerned in adjudication proceeding is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of provisions of Act in adjudication proceeding, trial of person concerned shall be in abuse of process of court. 46. learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court had occasion to consider this question in case under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act in Criminal Application No. 1070 of 1999 (Hemendra M. Kothari vs. Shri W.S. Vaigankar, Assistant Director, 10 Enforcement Directorate (FERA), Govt. of India and State of Maharashtra), decided on 25.04.2007 and on review of large number of decisions of this Court and other courts it came to following conclusion :- "21. It may be noted that in present case applicant was exonerated by Dy. Director of Enforcement, who was adjudicating authority, in adjudication proceedings. Admittedly that order was not challenged in appeal by respondent and thus that order has become final. I have already noted facts and findings of adjudicating authority in detail. adjudicating authority had clearly come to conclusion that there was no material to hold present applicant guilty for contravention of provisions of FERA and he was completely exonerated. When in departmental proceedings before adjudicating authority, department could not establish charges, it is difficult to imagine how department could prove same charges before criminal Court when standard of proof may be much higher and stringent than standard of proof required in departmental proceedings." Delhi High Court also considered this question arising out of case under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, in detail in case of Sunil Gulati & Anr. V. R.K. Vohra 145 (2007) DLT 612, and held as follows :- "In case of converse situation namely where accused persons are exonerated by competent authorities/Tribunal in adjudication proceedings, one will have to see reasons for such exoneration to determine whether these criminal proceedings should still continue. If exoneration in departmental adjudication is on technical ground or by giving benefit of doubt and not on merits or adjudication proceedings were on different facts, it would have no bearing on criminal proceedings. If, on other hand, exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on merits and concerned person(s) is/are innocent, and criminal prosecution is also on same set of facts and circumstances, criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to continue. reason is obvious criminal complaint is filed by departmental authorities alleging violation/contravention of provisions of Act on part of accused persons. However, if departmental authorities themselves, in adjudication proceedings, record categorical and unambiguous finding that there is no such contravention of provisions of Act, it would be unjust for such departmental authorities to continue with criminal complaint and say that there is sufficient evidence to foist accused persons with criminal liability when it is stated in departmental proceedings that ex facie there is no such violation. yardstick would, therefore, be to see as to whether charges in departmental proceedings as well as criminal complaint are identical and exoneration of concerned person in departmental proceedings is on merits holding that there is no contravention of provisions of any Act." 8. He has also placed reliance upon judgment rendered in 11 Chitira Builders P. Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commr. Of C, C.E. & S.T. Coimbatore, 2013 (31) S.T.R. 515 (Mad.) in which it has been held; that collection of Rs.2.00 crores by Department from, petitioner-company during search conducted, cannot be held to be valid even though it had been stated on behalf of Department that sum of Rs.2.00 crores had been collected from petitioner-company,, voluntarily, in respect of its Service Tax liability, it has not been shown by Department that petitioner was liable to pay Service Tax to respondent Department relating to works being carried on by it during course of its business. No tax could be collected from assessee, without appropriate assessment order being passed by authority concerned and by following procedures established by law and accordingly respondent was directed to return sum of Rs.2.00 crores, collected from petitioner. 9. He has further placed reliance upon judgment rendered in Metal Forgings vs. Union of India, 2002 (146) E.L.T. 241 (S.C). Attention has been drawn to para 10 of this judgment, which is quoted here-in-below; 10. It is admitted fact that show cause notice as required in law has not been issued by revenue. first contention of revenue in this regard is that since necessary information required to be given in show cause notice was made available to appellants in form of various letters and orders, issuance of such demand notice in specified manner is not required in law. We do think that we cannot accede to this argument of learned counsel for revenue. Herein we may also notice that learned Technical Member of tribunal has rightly come to conclusion that various documents and orders which were sought to be treated as show cause notices by appellate authority are inadequate to be treated as show cause notices contemplated under Rule 10 of Rules or Section 11A of Act. Even Judicial Member in his order has taken almost similar view by holding that letters either in form of suggestion or advice or deemed notice issued prior to finalisation of classification cannot be taken note of as show cause notices for recovery of demand, and we are in agreement with said findings of two Members of tribunal. This is because of fact that issuance of show cause notice in particular format is mandatory requirement of law. law requires said notice to be issued under specific provision of law and not as correspondence or part of order. said notice must also indicate amount demanded and call upon assessee to show cause if he has any objection for such demand. said notice also will have to be served on assessee within said period which is either 6 months or 5 years as facts demand. Therefore, it will be futile to 12 contend that each and every communication or order could be construed as show cause notice. For this reason above argument of revenue must fail. 10. Further, it is held in this judgment that show cause notice is mandatory requirement for raising demand. Communications, orders, suggestions or advices from Department would not be deemed to be show cause notice because specific show cause notice indicating amount demanded and calling upon assessee to show cause if he has any objection to such demand, was necessary. 11. He has further placed reliance upon judgment rendered in Akhil Krishan Maggu vs. Dy. Dir. D.G. of GST Intelligence, 2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 516 (P&H), in which it has been held that power to arrest has to be resorted in exceptional cases with full circumspection and summons are served to record statement are complied with then mandate of sections 41 and 41A of Cr.P.C. should be taken care of. 41. When police may arrest without warrant-(1) Any police officer may without order from Magistrate and without warrant, arrest any person- (a) who commits, in presence of police officer, cognizable offence; (b) against whom reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years 28 of 36 CWP No.24195 of 2019(O&M) #29# whether with or without fine, if following conditions are satisfied, namely: (i) police officer has reason to believe on basis of such complaint, information, or suspicion that such person has committed said offence; (ii) police office is satisfied that such arrest is necessary- 13 (a) to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or (b)for proper investigation of offence or; (c) to prevent such person from causing evidence of offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or (d) to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to Court or to police officer; or (e) as unless such person is arrested, his presence in Court whenever required cannot be ensured; And police officer shall record while making such arrest, his reasons in writing: Provided that police officer shall, in all cases where arrest of person is not required under provisions of this sub-section, record reasons in writing for not making arrest; 41-A Notice of appearance before police officer- (1) police officer shall, in all cases where arrest of person is not required under provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue notice directing person against whom reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in notice. (2) Where such notice is issued to any person, it shall be duty of that person to comply with terms of notice. (3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of offence referred to in notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, police officers is of opinion that he ought to be arrested. (4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with terms of notice or is unwilling to identify himself, police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for offence mentioned in notice. Arrest Power to arrest When to be exercised- Section 69 and 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.-power of arrest should not be exercised at whims and caprices of any officer or for sake of recovery or terrorizing any businessman or create atmosphere of fear, whereas it should be exercised in exceptional 14 circumstances during investigation , which illustratively maybe : (I) person is involved in evasion of huge amount of tax and is having no permanent place of business, (ii) person is not appearing in spite of repeated summons and is involved in huge amount of evasion of tax, (iii) person is habitual offender and he has been prosecuted or convicted on earlier occasion, (iv) person is likely to flee from country , (v) person is originator of fake invoice, i.e.,invoices without payment of tax, and (vi) when direct documentary or otherwise concrete evidence is available on file/record of active involvement of person in tax evasion [ 2016(44) S.T.R 481 (Del), 2019 (25) G.S.T.L321(Mad.), (2011) 1 SCC 694 relied on].[paras 9,10] 12. By drawing attention to above rulings, main point which has been emphasized by learned counsel for applicant is that because no proper notice has been served upon applicant demanding outstanding amount of GST, therefore, there was no necessity of accused being arrested. legal notice was required to be served upon applicant to pay outstanding amount of GST but instead of that FIR has been lodged on basis of which applicant is apprehending imminent arrest which has necessitated him to move this anticipatory bail application seeking protection from this Court. It was further emphasized during argument by learned counsel for applicant that U.P. Goods and Services Tax 2017 (In short U.P. Act) is complete code in itself, therefore, there was no need for imposing offence under above-mentioned sections of IPC. He has also drawn attention towards sections 122 as well as 132 of U.P. Act which provides penalties for offence having been found committed under said Act, would be punishable and has again emphasized that since no service of notice has been effected of any fixed amount, which is being stated to have been violated by him, therefore, this kind of FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law. 13. On other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed for grant of bail and has drawn attention to statement of 15 Narendra Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector Kosi, which was placed before Court as case diary was received and same was found annexed and it has been argued that in said statement, he has fully supported prosecution version as narrated in FIR and further attention is drawn to order of Division bench of this Court dated 30.5.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 7303 of 2019 Govind Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and others in which applicant had sought quashing of FIR filed against him under above-mentioned sections and Division Bench had considered all aspects of matter at length which may be found from perusal of said judgment and has given finding that according to FIR necessary ingredients of offence of cheating, by submitting false information and documents have been clearly spelled out because bogus firm was got registered by showing false bogus addresses of business, and, by taking advantage of registration, inward e-way bills were generated to make purchase of goods worth Rs.35.00 odd crores and, thereafter without generating outward supply bills, huge amount of money was deposited in cash in undisclosed bank account, suggesting that goods were sold without proper documentation, with view to evade taxes. In such view of matter, Division Bench of this Court has not found case fit for quashing FIR and dismissed same after observing that power of staying arrest is not to be exercised mainly in matters relating to economic fraud and therefore finding this to be economic fraud, it had declined to stay arrest. 14. I have gone through evidence of present case and also judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 30.5.2019 and also have gone through case laws which have been provided by learned counsel for applicant above, I find that this is not to be fit case in which indulgence of granting anticipatory bail should 16 be exercised because it has come on record that applicant's firm was found indulging in running business from bogus address and huge transaction is shown to have been done without there is any such big transaction reflected from account of firm. argument of learned counsel for applicant that notice is required to be issued to accused before lodging FIR also does not sound to be reasonable view because there are offence alleged to have been committed under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120B IPC also regarding which no such notice is required to be sent. It is found to be case of economic fraud in which normal course adopted by Courts should be not to grant stay against arrest because investigation might require custodial interrogation as well. This court is not to be guided only by fact that apart from IPC, offence under U.P. Act is also said to have been committed which requires notice to be issued to accused and in totality of matter this Court finds that there is no genuine ground to grant relief of anticipatory bail to accused-applicant in this matter. 15. Looking to aforesaid fact, taking into consideration gravity of accusation, and there being possibility of his fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on merits of case, this Court does not find good ground for enlarging applicant, Govind Agarwal on anticipatory bail in this case. anticipatory bail application of applicant Govind Agarwal is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 7.2.2020 AU Govind Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another