Bail Petition Granted due to Co-Accused’s Bail and No Evidence Tampering Allegation

Case Details: Taranjeet Singh Bagga @Sonu Singh v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office - [2023] 149 taxmann.com 106 (HC-Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Ms Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
  • Abhik Kumar & Rinku Mathur, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • A. Ansari, Prosecutor & Tarun Srivastava, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the applicant filed a bail application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail for an offence punishable u/s 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.

An investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) into the affairs of the accused company ‘PPPL’ revealed that the director of ‘PPPL’ i.e. ‘S’ used to procure plastic granules from large-scale public sector undertakings as well as from local suppliers. These granules were then sold in cash to local vendors without any tax invoices.

Whereas, tax invoices for these cash sales were issued to various entities including many related parties to adjust purchases. Similarly, tax invoices without any underlying goods were also issued to non-related parties who required them for availing of credit of duty (VAT).

Further, in order to carry out the said deception, several sham entities were formed by ‘S’ in the name of his relatives and employees.

The petitioner was the proprietor of one of the entities in which funds were routed by ‘S. The allegation against the petitioner was that he arranged documents and people in whose name fake entities and bank accounts were opened, which were subsequently used to route funds of ‘PPPL’.

Thus, the SFIO filed a complaint against the petitioner for committing an offence u/s 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the petitioner was taken into custody.

The High Court observed that the co-accused, the director of the accused company, had already been granted bail and there was no allegation that the petitioner could either intimidate any witnesses or tamper with evidence. Further, it was not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner did not join or cooperate in an investigation.

High Court Held

The High Court held that, considering the aforesaid discussion, and the fact that the petitioner was in judicial custody since 25-5-2022, the petitioner was to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Accordingly, the present bail application stands disposed of.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [2022] 10 SCC 51 (para 6)
  • Sanjay Chandra v. CBI AIR 2012 SC 830 (para 7)
  • Gurcharan Singh v. State Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 179 (para 7)
  • Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor AIR 1978 SC 429 (para 7)
  • Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 429 (para 7)
  • Anil Mahajan v. Commissioner of Custom [2000] 84 DLT 854 (para 7)
  • Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nitin Johari [2019] 109 taxmann.com 224/156 SCL 500 (SC) (para 8)
  • State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad [2001] 7 SCC 673 (para 8)
  • T. Bijando Singh v. Md. Ibocha @ Kalam Shah [2004] 10 SCC 151 (para 8)
  • Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement [2017] 87 taxmann.com 260/[2018] 145 SCL 1 (SC) (para 8)
  • State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal 1987 taxmann.com 612 (SC) (para 8)
  • Rana Kapoor v. Directorate of Enforcement [2022] 145 taxmann.com 203 (Delhi) (para 13).