Jharkhand High Court
Satya Prakash Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 January, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 2096 of 2024
------
Satya Prakash Singh, aged about 48 years, s/o Guru Govind
Singh Azad, r/o House No.7, Road No.1, Laxmi Nagar, Telco,
Birshnagar, P.O.-Chotta Gobindpur, P.S.-Gobindpur, Dist.-
East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur-831004
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Joint Commissioner, GST Jamshedpur, Office of the
Commissioner, GST & CX Commissionerate Office, Outer
Circular Road, Bistupur, P.O.+P.S.-Bistupur, Dist.-East
Singhbhum, 83100 … Opposite
Parties
——
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
——
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC I
------
Order No.11 Dated- 20.01.2025
Heard the parties.
Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this
Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with
Telco P.S. Case No.104 of 2018 (G.R. No. 2027 of 2018) registered
under sections 406/420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code
and under Section 132 (1) (b)/131 (1) (e)/132 (1) (1) of Jharkhand
Goods and Services Tax (JGST).
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is a tax
practitioner and in connivance with the co-accused has facilitated
for registration of a proprietary firm on the basis of fake and vague
documents for evading huge tax of government. It is further
submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false
and drawing attention of this Court to the FIR of the case the
petitioner admits that he facilitated GST registration of the co-
accused in the name and style of P.K. Traders. It is next submitted
that it is neither the duty nor the responsibility of the petitioner to
verify the documents which were furnished by his client to him
and Mr. Pankaj Singh who was representing P.K. Traders went
away after taking away all the documents after registration of the
said proprietary firm. It is then submitted that Input Tax Credit
(ITC) is against the co-accused and there is no allegation against
the petitioner of having any share of the same. It is also submitted
that the petitioner is still an Advocate by profession and
established tax practitioner, hence there is no chance of his
absconding. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to
furnish sufficient security including cash security and also
undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence,
it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
Learned P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as
discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the
above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on
depositing cash security of Rs. 50,000/- and on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M.
1st Class, Jamshedpur, in connection with Telco P.S. Case No.104 of
2018 (G.R. No. 2027 of 2018) with the condition that the petitioner
will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before
the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will
furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the
court below with the undertaking that he will not change his
mobile number during the pendency of the case subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sonu/Gunjan-
[ad_1]
Source link