Bail Granted to Person Accused of Misusing PAN and Claiming Fake ITC of Rs. 26,452,895,600

It is the case of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in this very case with malafide intent. The applicant was named in the FIR. The three cases aforementioned were mentioned in the gang chart, which arrayed 33 persons. The applicant applied for bail before this Court which bail application was rejected by this Court. The order rejecting the bail plea of the applicant was assailed before the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 5367 of 2024 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 16896-16898 of 2024 along with other SLPs. The Apex Court vide its order dated 16.12.2024 directed the Trial Court to enlarge the applicant on bail on the same terms and conditions as directed vide order dated 16.12.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 16896-16898 of 2024. The Trial Court (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Gautam Buddh Nagar, in compliance with the order of the Apex Court, granted bail to the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 0173 of 2024, under Section 2/3 of the Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Noida, Sector-20, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, only with the view to frustrate the order of the Apex Court granting bail to the applicant. It has also been argued that the cause of action in the three FIRs did not arise in the State of U.P. and the present case under the Gangster Act also has no legs to stand having been founded on the strength of the three FIRs i.e. Case Crime No. 203 of 2023, 248 of 2023 and 255 of 2023. It is also submitted that the investigation is still going on and approval of the officers on the gang chart has been completely ignored, rendering the gang chart illegal in the eyes of the law. No recovery has been made from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness, and no transaction has been made in the account of the applicant. The applicant has never been a gang member in the alleged gang. Apart from the above, three cases and the present case, the applicant has no other criminal antecedents.

Per contra, learned AGA in opposition to the bail plea of the applicant contended that the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the instant case under the Gangster Act has been lodged against the applicant only to frustrate the bail order of the Apex Court does not merit consideration in as much as the order of the Apex Court is dated 16.12.2024, pursuant to which the applicant was released on bail by the Trial Court. The present case under the Gangster Act was instituted on 16.12.2024, much prior to the aforesaid date, as is evident from the FIR brought on record. No sinister purpose in this regard can be attributed to the State Respondent. The Court finds substance in the said submission of the learned AGA. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant does not merit consideration. Learned AGA further submits that the applicant along with others co-accused person are working as a syndicate and has claimed the Input Tax Credit to the tune of Rs. 26,452,895,600/– by misusing the PAN Card of Saurabh Dwivedi and other general public generated fake GST Numbers and evaded GST by claiming Input Tax Credit of the above amount, which has caused loss of billions of rupees to the State Exchequer which is a serious economic offence.

Relevant Text of Order of Court:

8. I have heard the respective counsels and perused the records. On the perusal of the records, I find that admittedly the applicant has been granted bail in the three predicate FIRs giving rise to Case Crime No. 203 of 2023, Case Crime No. 248 of 2023 and Case Crime No. 255 of 2023, all under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, 1860, Police Station Noida Sector-20, District Gautam Buddh Nagar by the Apex Court. The applicant has no criminal history. The Court also finds that the allegations against the applicant is that he is an active member of a gang, who is an habitual offender of committing crimes for economic material and material gain for himself and other gang members and along with other co-accused persons have claimed Input Tax Credit by misusing the PAN Card of Saurabh Dwivedi and other general public generated fake GST numbers and evaded GST to the tune of Rs. 26,452,895,600/-. The registration of the case under the Gangster Act stems from the allegations set out in the three predicate FIRs. The applicant has already been granted bail by the Apex Court in the three criminal cases on which basis the present case under the Gangster Act has been registered. It may be also noted that the Criminal Cases which form the basis of the present proceedings under the Gangster Act are all triable by Court of Magistrate. The Apex Court has released the applicant taking note of the said fact. The co-accused Rajiv Jindal and Gaurav Singhal have already been enlarged on bail. The Apex Court very recently in the case of Jay Kishan and others Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. …………. of 2025, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. …………….. of 2025 (Diary No 23042 of 2024) reported in 2025/NSC/98 while considering an Appeal arisen from a final order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 17.01.2024 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 19541 of 2023 dismissing the writ petition filed for quashing the FIR under Section 2 & 3 of the U.P. Gangster Act, while allowing the Appeal was pleased to observed as under:-

“26. While the three CCs find reference in the FIR-CC 92 of 2023, a glance at the afore-extract would exhibit a certain vagueness. In our considered opinion, the same would not meet the threshold requirement to enable recourse to the Act. Obviously, the allegations in the CCs are yet to be adjudicated finally by a competent court. We may hasten to add that not for a minute are we to be misunderstood to mean that the Act cannot be invoked basis pending cases. Of course, it can be. However, the case(s) against the person(s) qua whom the Act is to be invoked cannot be run-of-the-mill it must be serious. The severity required for the underlying case(s), we think, ought not to be judicially strait-jacketed as a lot would turn on the specific peculiarities of each case. The situation would be very different though, if the allegations levelled in the underlying case(s) had been proved at trial – it could have been a good ground to sustain and justify action under the Act. In that scenario, we would have ordinarily refrained from any interdiction. In the present matter, for the three CCs, as trial has yet to commence/is continuing/has not been concluded, for the present, there remain only indications and open-endedness to the allegations.

In other words, in praesenti, the underlying CCs do not appear to fall within the net of ‘violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage’, as mandated under Section 2(b) of the Act. The situation, thus, would clearly operate to the benefit of the appellants. As the CCs referred to in the FIR are three, we are not required to deal with Shraddha Gupta (supra).

27. The matter is capable of being looked at from a different lens. The complainant(s)/informant(s) in the three CCs have resorted to their remedies under criminal law.

In fact, a fourth CC, as informed by learned counsel for R5, also stands lodged against the appellants. Assuming that all the allegations in the three (or four, including the CC not referred to in the FIR) CCs are correct, there is no mention of any instance, post- registration of the said CCs, of the appellants implementing/acting on the said alleged threats. The complainant(s)/informant(s) have also resorted, where required, to civil proceedings. In the overall picture that emerges from the above, resort to the Act by the State seems premature and uncalled for.”

9. In the opinion of the Court it is a fit case for granting bail to the applicants.

Accordingly, the bail application are allowed.

10. Let the accused-applicant, Vineeta, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on her executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and cooperate in the trial.

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial