Abhishek Modgil v. State of U.T. Chandigarh
[Citation -2020-LL-0612-48]

Citation 2020-LL-0612-48
Appellant Name Abhishek Modgil
Respondent Name State of U.T. Chandigarh
Relevant Act SGST
Date of Order 12/06/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags documentary evidence • investigation • bogus entries • satisfaction • tax evasion

! Sr. No.206 IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14113 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.06.2020 Abhishek Modgil ...Petitioner Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Present: Mr. H.S.Brar, Advocate, for petitioner. Mr. Manish Jain, APP, UT., Chandigarh. (Presence marked through video conference) ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) 1. petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 390 dated 16.12.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Central, Sector 17, Chandigarh. 2. As per allegations in FIR, petitioner is proprietor of M/s Mahadev Metals. petitioner obtained GST registration and had taxable supplies/transactions of goods to tune of Rs.20,46,52,098/-. He is stated to have committed tax evasion to tune of Rs.4,02,00,136/- by generating bogus invoices of sales and purchases. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is young boy of 24 years, just matriculate and is not even educated enough to understand or carry out transactions of such high magnitude running into ! 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2021 10:41:09 ::: ! more than Rs. 20 crores. He has been simply made scapegoat. According to him, identity documents of petitioner were misused and dummy firm was created, wherein alleged bogus entries were made to evade government taxes. He further submits that petitioner has nothing to do with these transactions and he is ready to join investigation. According to him, case is based on documentary evidence, which are in police possession and custodial interrogation of petitioner is not required. 4. Learned State/UT counsel, on other hand, opposes aforesaid submissions. He submits that petitioner not only cheated Tax Authorities but committed criminal offence as well, by forging bogus receipts. According to him, custodial interrogation of petitioner is necessary to elicit truth. 5. Having heard both learned counsel, I am of considered view that petitioner deserves concession of anticipatory bail. allegations are that petitioner forged and fabricated documents to avoid tax liability. All documents are already in possession of police. Whether petitioner had any role to play in entire gamut or he has been made scapegoat, as alleged, can be ascertained once petitioner joins investigation vis vis documentary evidence already seized. 6. In circumstances, petition is allowed. petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds of local and sound surety, to satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh, subject to his complying with provisions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. On his doing so, he shall join investigation and shall appear before Investigating Officer as and ! 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2021 10:41:09 ::: ! when called to do so and would cooperate in investigation, failing which State/UT is at liberty to approach this Court seeking cancellation of protection granted to petitioner. (ARUN MONGA) 12.06.2020 JUDGE Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No ! 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2021 10:41:09 ::: Abhishek Modgil v. State of U.T. Chandigarh
Report Error