Facts of the Case

This matter arises out of a batch of anticipatory bail applications filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The petitioners, Sheetal and Padam, apprehended arrest in connection with a large number of FIRs (including FIR Nos. 436/2022, 524/2022, 522/2022, 503/2022, 526/2022, 530/2022, 519/2022, 529/2022, 525/2022 and 435/2022) registered at Police Station Pratapnagar, District Bhilwara, for offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It should be noted at the outset that this is a criminal-law bail matter, not a GST dispute; a fabricated GST number surfaces in the narrative only as evidence relied on by the prosecution, not as a question of GST law before the Court.

The prosecution's case was that the main accused, Harsh Garg and Sarvesh alias Vinod, purchased clothes from several complainants (including Kamlesh Gokhru, Naresh Godha, Sushil Sharma, Sandeep Kothari, Suresh Somani, Purshottam Mundra, Sanjay Kumar Jain, Madhu Laddha, Veeraj Kumar Jain and Mahendra Teli), induced them to part with the goods, made some initial payments, and then fled after switching off their phones. It was alleged that the petitioners, in conspiracy with the main accused, received the misappropriated clothes and illegally resold them in the market, causing a loss of approximately Rs. 3 crore to the complainants. During investigation, the petitioners produced a purchase bill purportedly issued by a firm called "Vandana Fabrics" to show a legitimate transaction; the investigation found that the firm's name, its GST registration number, and other particulars on the bill were fictitious. The petitioners had earlier approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings, which was dismissed, before filing the present anticipatory bail applications.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC should be granted to the petitioners accused under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
  2. Whether the underlying transaction was a bona fide civil dispute over non-payment of dues, or a case of intentional cheating and conspiracy.
  3. Whether custodial interrogation of the petitioners was necessary in light of the allegedly forged purchase documentation.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioners were engaged in trade at Delhi and had only received goods from co-accused Harsh Garg and Sarvesh; they had no direct involvement in the alleged crime.
  • They were merely consumers/purchasers and had been falsely implicated by the various complainants.
  • The dispute was purely civil in nature — non-payment of dues — and did not amount to cheating.
  • The police had already recovered the goods in question, so custodial investigation was unnecessary, and anticipatory bail should be granted.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Documents submitted by the petitioners, including a bill from the firm "Vandana Fabrics," were found to be forged — the firm's name, GST number and other details did not exist.
  • Investigation revealed that the petitioners were in constant telephonic contact with the main accused, indicating an active role in the conspiracy.
  • The petitioners, along with the main accused, had misappropriated goods worth approximately Rs. 3 crore and illegally sold them in the market.
  • Custodial investigation was necessary to trace further clues regarding the misappropriated goods, and the investigation was still pending.
  • The petitioners had already tried and failed to escape investigation through an earlier Section 482 CrPC petition.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that the investigation prima facie showed the petitioners acting in conspiracy with the main accused, based on their telephonic contact and the submission of a forged purchase bill.
  • It noted the fabricated GST number and firm name only as one indicator that the petitioners' purchase documents were forged — the order does not analyse or decide any point of GST law.
  • Weighing the overall facts and circumstances, and given the pending investigation, the Court held that custodial investigation was warranted and declined to grant anticipatory bail.
  • The bail applications filed by Sheetal and Padam were accordingly dismissed.

Important Clarification

This order is a useful reminder that a "fake GST number" appearing in a criminal case is often just one piece of documentary evidence used to establish forgery or cheating, and not itself the subject-matter of adjudication. Courts deciding anticipatory bail applications in such cases apply ordinary criminal-law bail parameters — nature of the accusation, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and need for custodial interrogation — rather than engaging with any GST compliance question.

Sections Involved

  • Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Criminal breach of trust
  • Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Cheating
  • Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Anticipatory bail

Decision – In Favour of Respondent (State)

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications filed by the petitioners, ruling in favour of the State. The decision was based entirely on standard criminal bail considerations relating to the cheating/criminal breach of trust allegations, and did not involve or decide any question of GST law.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
  • Case No.: S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1235/2023 (with connected Bail Application Nos. 1718, 1720, 1722, 1724, 1726, 1727, 1729, 1730, 1873, 1962, 2205, 2207, 2208, 2209, 2213, 2214, 2215, 2216 and 2218 of 2023)
  • Neutral/CNR Reference: [2023/RJJD/007873]
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Praveer Bhatnagar
  • Date of Order: 06 April 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.