ORDER

HON’BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR,J.

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.535 of 2020 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and section 66 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000, P.S. Dargah Shareef, district Bahraich.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are proprietor of firms Gaurav Trading Company, Purna Trading Company and Sai Baba Trading Company, duly registered with GST. They are the bona fide firms and are doing their business in legal manner. The monthly return of GST has been filed by the applicants firm.

The first information report has been lodged by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Gonda on the basis of inspection carried out at the firms of M/s Ambe Gall Bhandar Ashoka, Bahraich and M/s Durga Trading Company, Bahraich alleging some discrepancies. It is alleged that on the basis of forged documents, the firm has been registered and these firms have availed input tax credit on the basis of bogus invoice(s). The names of the applicants firm are also mentioned in the first information report. Although, there is no allegation against the applicants firm, however, summons have been issued by the police in which the name of the applicants’ firm as accused has been mentioned. The appellants are apprehending arrest.

It is submitted that punishment for the alleged offence is provided under section 132 of U.P. G.S.T. Act and the Joint Commissioner instead of taking recourse to that has directly lodged the first information report. It is submitted that since the seller firm as per allegation in the first information report has been found bogus, therefore, for the applicants firm being purchaser firm, proceedings under section 74 of U.P. G.S.T. Act are going on and the applicants have participated in those proceedings and against the order of the assessing authority, appeal has been filed by the applicants firm by depositing 10% of the disputed tax amount.

It is submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The applicants have no criminal antecedent.

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicanta shall cooperate in the investigation.

Learned Addl. Government Advocate opposed the bail prayer and has informed the court that the investigation is going on. Considering the above aspects of the matter, perusal of the record, the fact that proceedings under section 74 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act are going on, as also the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant protection to the applicants under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Till filing of the police report, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

The applicants shall cooperate in the investigation and they will not influence the witnesses. The accused-applicants will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move appropriate application.

The application is allowed accordingly.