The Sessions Court has refused the bail to the person accused of GST Fraud in Faridabad.
The bench of Jyoti Lamba (Addl. Sessions Judge) has observed that the interest of Society outweighs the individual interest of the person and the longer period of imprisonment can not be a ground for grant of bail. There was every danger of the course of justice being thwarted, if the accused was enlarged on bail.
After the CJM, now the sessions court also rejects the bail application.
The applicant was called by the GST Department. Accordingly, the applicant joined the inquiry still, he was arrested on the 28th. That he was in judicial custody w.e.f. 28.01.2025. Complaint has been filed against him before the concerned Magistrate.
The offence allegedly committed by him, was punishable with imprisonment of 5 years maximum. Statements of 5-6 labourers only have been recorded by the GST Department, to allege against him that he used to run fake Firms created by himself and others, in collusion with one another. To corroborate the aforesaid alleged fact, the GST Department failed to even collect the information regarding whether those labourers had any bank accounts or not.
The applicant was not in a position to influence the witnesses of the case, who was officials of the GST Department and if influenced, they had no right to continue in service. Disposal of the trial was likely, to take a long time
The Department contended that the applicant had created as many as 9 shell Firms, without any actual work being done by him or the Firms for availing and passing of fraudulent Input Tax Credit, to the tune of Rs. 23.66 Crores without actual supply of goods leading to contravention of the GST law. That sanction for prosecution of the applicant has also been accorded to the GST Department by the Competent Authority. Investigation was still going on. The brother of the applicant was also involved in the commission of the said offence with the applicant. That in case, enlarged on bail, the applicant would misuse the concession, tamper with the evidence and abscond. Hence, it was pleaded that the application in hand be dismissed.
The court held that the possibility of a wider network, after considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, the commission of offence, as alleged was prima-facie found attractive. Hence, the applicant-accused Arun Garg is held not entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Cr.P.C.
Case Details
Case Title: Arun Garg Versus State of Haryana
Case No.: CNR No.HRFB010039612025
Date: 09.04.2025
Counsel For Applicant: Ankur Gosain
Counsel For Respondent: Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel, Ankit Chaudhry,
Read More: MHA Appoints Narender Mann as Special Public Prosecutor for Tahawwur Rana’s 26/11 Trial
