# Kanika Dhingra v. State of U.P. 62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 61
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-02
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25547 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kanika-dhingra-v-state-of-u-p-62-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-52407
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

Mr.
Manish
Goel,
Sr.
Advocate,
Sr.
Advocate/ A.A.G., U.P., Mr. Amit Singh
Chauhan, AGA-I, Mr. Mayank Awasthi, Brief
Holder, Mr. Rishi Kumar, Addl. C.S.C., Mr.
Nitesh Srivastava, AGA

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections
420,
467,
468
&
471
-
Allegations against accused persons that
they created fraudulent firm by using PAN
Card, Aadhaar Card, Mobile Number of
informant and through fake invoices, they
breached supply chain of ITC, no actual
goods or services are exchanged but ITC
was claimed multiple times. (Para 32)

Co-accused
(son
of
applicant)
was
proprietor
of
M/s
Radhey
Krishna
Marketing, in whose account a hefty
transaction of crores of rupees was found
in a very short span from M/s Good Health
Industries
Pvt.
Ltd.
(managed
by
applicant's husband) and M/s Radhey
Krishna Marketing transferred Rs. 16.35
crores to saving bank account of applicant
through on-line mode - There were 71
consecutive transactions in account of her
son and 168 times in account of applicant
- The said transactions were of about Rs.
300 crores - Applicant contended that no
evidence against her in entire case diary
constituting any offence of cheating or
forging any documents or hatching any
conspiracy - Only money transaction from
one account to another has been taken
into
consideration
for
implicating
applicants. (Para 14, 16, 29)

Held, illegal profits as made by fake GST
firms
registered
by
using
PAN
and
Aadhaar Cards of informant, were made to
appear legitimate by moving money /
funds to Bank accounts of others, may be
company or firm or relatives' accounts -
Fraudsters, like all alleged accused in
instant case set up companies only on
paper to generate fake transactions, such
companies are abandoned or shutdown
after a short period. (Para 43, 45)

Bail application rejected. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,785 of 77,682. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39785 for what follows._

9 All. Kanika Dhingra Vs. State of U.P.
61
accused absconding or fleeing also the
character, behaviour, means, position and
standing of the accused and the likelihood
of the offence being repeated, coupled with
the
reasonable
apprehensions
of
the
witnesses being influenced and danger of
justice being defeated by grant of bail.

58. Thus, keeping the aforesaid in mind
and considering the material before this Court,
including the fact that Rasheed Naseem is
absconding but the applicant has been in touch
with him and also being in touch with other coaccused and this was while prosecution was
searching for the Directors and the applicant was
knowing their whereabouts but she never came
forward to assist the prosecution and this also
casts a doubt on the plea of the applicant that she
too was a genuine investor and the alleged
explanation on her part, rather absence of any
cogent explanation of recovery of huge data,
documents from her residence and money in her
account which leads this Court at this stage to be
unable to form a prima facie satisfaction as
required in terms of Section 45 of The PML Act
of 2002.

59. The plea that the applicant is a woman
and she has been in custody since November,
2023 and the trial is not likely to conclude soon
pales into insignificance at this stage since the
main director with whom the applicant was in
touch this fact does not bring her in the category
of a vulnerable woman, coupled with the
proportion of fraud committed as the number of
FIR's spread across various States duping very
large number of persons does not permit this
Court to extend the benefit of the decision of the
Apex Court in Kalvakuntla Kavitha (supra) and
Manish Sisodia (supra) to the applicant at this
stage.

60. Section 3 of The PML Act of 2002 not
only takes into account a role of a person actively
engaged in any process connected with the
proceeds of crime but even if such person
directly or indirectly is associated in the
concealment, possession, acquisition or use or
projecting as untainted property or claiming as
untainted property, all such acts are covered
under the offence of money laundering.

61. Thus taking an overall view including
the gravity of offence including the fact that the
witnesses of fact are yet to be examined also
keeping in mind the dictum of the Apex Court in
Pavana Dibbur (supra) and for all the reasons
aforesaid, this Court is unable to persuade itself
to form a, prima facie, satisfaction in terms of
Section 45 of The PML Act of 2002, at this
stage, that the applicant is not guilty or that she
may not commit an offence on bail. Thus, for all
the aforesaid reasons, the bail application is
rejected.

43. However, it is also clarified that any
observations made by this Court may not be
taken as an expression of opinion on merits. The
trial court is directed to expedite the trial to
complete it as swiftly as possible and the
prosecuting
agency shall not seek
any
unnecessary adjournments on the ground of
examination of witnesses.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 61
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25547 of
2024
With
Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 27277/2024,
27447/2024, 27485/2024, 27459/2024 & 27693

Kanika Dhingra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party
62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicant:
Mr. Anoop Trivedi Sr. Advocate, Mr. Nafees
Ahmad, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Mr.
Manish
Goel,
Sr.
Advocate,
Sr.
Advocate/ A.A.G., U.P., Mr. Amit Singh
Chauhan, AGA-I, Mr. Mayank Awasthi, Brief
Holder, Mr. Rishi Kumar, Addl. C.S.C., Mr.
Nitesh Srivastava, AGA

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections
420,
467,
468
&
471
-
Allegations against accused persons that
they created fraudulent firm by using PAN
Card, Aadhaar Card, Mobile Number of
informant and through fake invoices, they
breached supply chain of ITC, no actual
goods or services are exchanged but ITC
was claimed multiple times. (Para 32)

Co-accused
(son
of
applicant)
was
proprietor
of
M/s
Radhey
Krishna
Marketing, in whose account a hefty
transaction of crores of rupees was found
in a very short span from M/s Good Health
Industries
Pvt.
Ltd.
(managed
by
applicant's husband) and M/s Radhey
Krishna Marketing transferred Rs. 16.35
crores to saving bank account of applicant
through on-line mode - There were 71
consecutive transactions in account of her
son and 168 times in account of applicant
- The said transactions were of about Rs.
300 crores - Applicant contended that no
evidence against her in entire case diary
constituting any offence of cheating or
forging any documents or hatching any
conspiracy - Only money transaction from
one account to another has been taken
into
consideration
for
implicating
applicants. (Para 14, 16, 29)

Held, illegal profits as made by fake GST
firms
registered
by
using
PAN
and
Aadhaar Cards of informant, were made to
appear legitimate by moving money /
funds to Bank accounts of others, may be
company or firm or relatives' accounts -
Fraudsters, like all alleged accused in
instant case set up companies only on
paper to generate fake transactions, such
companies are abandoned or shutdown
after a short period. (Para 43, 45)

Bail application rejected. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh
Vs St. of Chhattisgarh, 2023 Livelaw (SC) 358

2. Yogesh Jagish Kanodia Vs St. of Mah. & anr.,
(2021) 90 GSTR 402 : 2021 SCC OnLine Bom
154 : (2021) 2 Bom CR (Cri) 112

3. Ajay Khanna Vs St. Tax Anti Evasion Bureau,
Jabalpur (M.P.), (2020) 73 GSTR 296 2019 SCC
OnLine MP 2130 : (2019) 30 GSTL 44

4. Rajesh Jindal Vs Commissioner of Central Tax
GST, Delhi (West), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 1344 :
(2019) 21 GSTL 471

5. Jagdish Kanani Vs Commissioner of CGST &
Central Excise, Indore, 2019 SCC OnLine MP
7108 : (2019) 12 GSTL 460

6. Ranjeet @ Ranjeet Singh Vs U.O.I., 2018 SCC
OnLine All 6085 : (2018) 17 GSTL 381

7. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation; Central Bureau of Investigation,
(2013) 7 SCC 439, (Para 34 and 35)

8. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Ramendu
Chattopadhyay, (2020) 14 SCC 396

9.
Tarun
Kumar
Vs
Assistant
Director,
Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1486

10. St. of Bihar & anr. Vs Amit Kumar @
Bachcha Rai, (2017) 13 SCC 751

11. Nimmagadda Prasad Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466, (Para 24)

12. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs Nittin
ohari & anr., (2019) 9 SCC 165

13. St. of Gujarat Vs Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal &
anr., (1987) 2 SCC 364
9 All. Kanika Dhingra Vs. State of U.P.
63
14. UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services
Limited Vs Extra Tech World and Ors, (By
Bombay High Court in Interim Application (L)
No. 564 of 2024 in Commercial Intellectual
Property Rights Suit (L) No. 537 of 2024)

15. Manish Sisodia Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393

16. Directorate of Enforcement Vs M. Gopal
Reddy & anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1862

17. Tahir Hussain Vs The Assistant Director
Enforcement Directorate, (Crl. ReVs P. 775/2022
and Crl. M.A. No. 23452/2022, Order dated
24.11.2022)

18.
Gurcharan
Singh
Vs
St.
(Delhi
Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118, (Para 29)

19. Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs NCT, Delhi & anr.,
(2001) 4 SCC 280, (Para 8)

20. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs Rajesh Ranjan,
(2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, (Para
11)

21. St. of U.P. Through CBI Vs Amarmani
Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, (Para 18)

22.
P.
Chidambaram
Vs
Directorate
of
Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791 : (2020) 4 SCC
(Cri) 646, (Para 23)

23. Satendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation & anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. This bunch of bail applications
arises out of three first information reports,
which are: (i) FIR /Case Crime No. 203 of
2023, dated 04.05.2023, under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station
Noida Sector-20, District Gautam Buddh
Nagar (ii) FIR/Case Crime No. 248 of
2023, dated 01.06.2023, under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station
Noida Sector-20, District Gautam Buddh
Nagar, and (iii) FIR/Case Crime No. 255 of
2023, dated 08.06.2003, under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC, Noida
Sector-20, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.

2. As per prosecution version in
FIR/Case Crime No. 203/2023, dated
04.05.2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-20,
Gautam Buddh Nagar, the informant
Saurabh Dwivedi is a journalist and works
as an Editor of the Lallantop internet news
portal and India Today Hindi Magazine. He
came across two GST registrations viz.
03AUSPD7067N1Z3
and
27AUSPD7067N1ZT obtained in the State
of Punjab and Maharashtra respectively
w.e.f. 20.03.2023. These have been applied
on
informant's
PAN
AUSPD7067N
(Exhibit 1) and bear his name, Saurabh
Dwivedi as legal name of the business
entity. The details of both the registrations
from GST portal are enclosed as Exhibit 2
to the complaint. The registered address
mentioned for the given two registrations
are as under - (a) 03AUSPD7067N1Z3
having registered address as 787, Ground
Floor,
Railway
Office,
ATI
Road,
Ludhiana,
Punjab,
141008,
(b)
27AUSPD7067N1ZT
having
registered
address as 172, Sau Alakatal Uttamrao
Nikalaje
Path,
Solapur,
Solapur,
Maharashtra, 413003. These have not been
obtained with his consensus and he is
totally unaware of the person who applied
for these registrations and whose contact
details
are
updated
in
these
GST
registrations. It is also mentioned that the
two registrations are already authenticated
for Aadhaar verification whereas as on date
no email ID and mobile number is linked
with his Aadhaar. Copy of Aadhaar Card
along with screenshot showing the absence
of any email ID or mobile number in
Aadhaar details is enclosed as Exhibit.
64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Further it has been learnt that similar
registration has been applied in the UT of
Delhi, however, the same got rejected by
the GST authorities. The acknowledgement
number generated after filing of GST
registration
application
is
AA070323054161Q. Hence, the FIR has
been lodged.

3. As per prosecution version in
FIR/Case Crime No. 248/2023, dated
01.06.2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-20,
Gautam Buddh Nagar, the informant -
Sumit
Yadav
came
to
know
about
registration of fake firm, Yadav Traders,
against his PAN Card No. AHFPX9874Q
and the address is recorded as Ground
Floor JL No. 219 Khatian No. 2275 dag no.
1835, Sahibganj Road, near Sahibganj,
High
School,
Kharimala,
Khagrabari
Cooch behar West Bengal - 736101. Said
Firm is got registered fallaciously against
informant's PAN Card AHFPX9874Q. It
has been registered illegally by some
unknown
miscreants.
Informant
has
mentioned his permanent address as K-11
Gyan Sarowar Colony, Ramghat Road,
Aligarh, and present address as J-41, Senior
Citizen Society, Greater Noida. Thus, the
FIR has been lodged.

4. As per prosecution version in
FIR/Case Crime No. 255/2023, dated
08.06.2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Noida
Sector-20, Gautam Buddh Nagar, the
informant - Arvind Kumar Yadav, on being
known about arrest of some persons who
illegally got GST registration using PAN
Card
of
the
persons,
checked
on
GSTSEARCH.in and found that three fake
GST Numbers detailed in the FIR bearing:
(1) GST No. 24ABBP43323J12N, (2) GST
No. 24ABBPY43323J2ZM and (3) GST
No.
06ABBPY3323J12L
have
been
obtained by someone, whereas he or his
family member never obtained any GST
Number and has no concern with the firms.
He has stated that his documents have been
misused. Hence, the FIR has been lodged.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
while placing the fact in the case of Kanika
Dhingra and Mayank Dhingra, submits that
three first information reports have been
lodged, for which investigation started and
charge sheet was submitted against 8
accused persons on 29.08.2023. The
applicants are neither named in the first
information
reports
nor
have
been
chargesheeted till 29.08.2023.

6. On 06.09.2023 CD Parcha No. 75
was forwarded, wherein the Investigating
Officer has recorded that he has received
information from DGGI Meerut, Zonal
Unit, Ghaziabad regarding prosecution of
Sanjay Dhingra conducted by DGGI,
Meerut under the provisions of the GST
Act, 2017. The Investigating Officer
reduced into writing the complaint dated
04.08.2023 filed by DGGI, Meerut in the
court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Meerut bearing Case No. 1942 of 2023. In
the said complaint it was alleged that M/s
Good Health Industries Pvt. Ltd., the
Company where husband of the applicant -
Kanika Dhingra, works as a consultant, had
transactions with M/s AKS Traders which
in turn had transactions with M/s YOYO
Traders.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that the case-diary of Case Crime
No. 203 of 2023 consists of 70 parchas,
wherein investigation as conducted from
04.05.2023 to 29.08.2023 does not mention
names of YOYO Traders and M/s AKS
Traders. The same is situation in the case
9 All. Kanika Dhingra Vs. State of U.P.
65
diary of Case Crime No. 248 of 2023,
wherein investigation was conducted from
01.06.2023 to 29.08.2023 containing 63
parchas and also that in the case of Case
Crime No. 255 of 2023, wherein 51 parchas
were
there,
investigation
has
been
conducted from 08.06.2023 to 29.08.2023.

8. It appears that taking a clue from
the complaint of GST, the Investigating
Officer has forwarded CD Parcha No. 59
wherein he records that M/s YOYO Traders
passed on input tax credit to M/s AKS
Traders and M/s AKS Traders passed on
input tax credit to M/s Good Health Pvt. Ltd.
It is for the first time in the entire case diary
wherein names of M/s YOYO Traders and
M/s AKS Traders have been included in the
investigation and it has been alleged that M/s
YOYO Traders had been registered using
mobile
phone
having
IMEI
No.
862625043825695 which was allegedly shown
to have been recovered from Deepak Murjani.
Thus, it is evident that allegation of transactions
made by M/s Good Health Pvt. Ltd. with M/s
AKS Traders which in turn transacted to M/s
YOYO Traders, has already been investigated
by the DGGI, Meerut and charge sheet in form
of complaint under CGST Act, 2017 has been
submitted before the Special Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Meerut. However, the same
allegation has been pressed into CD Parcha No.
57 of the instant case.

9. It is also relevant to mention that
Sanjay Dhingra, against whom complaint is
there under CGST Act, 2017, has already
been released on bail in the aforesaid case
by an order dated 03.08.2023 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
32951 of 2023, Sanjay Dhingra v. Union of
India and another.

10. Thus, for the offence under the
GST Act, where provisions of the CGST
Act are applicable, the proceedings have
been drawn and Sanjay Dhingra had
already been released on bail, for the said
offence, Kanika Dhingra (wife of Sanjay
Dhingra) and Mayank Dhingra (son of
Sanjay Dhingra) cannot be prosecuted as
there were some transactions between the
companies of Sanjay Dhingra and Mayank
Dhingra whereas only money has been
transferred from the account of Mayank
Dhingra to that of Kanika Dhingra.

11. It has also been submitted by
learned counsel for the applicants that from
CD Parcha No. 60 wherein Investigating
Officer records statements of employees of
M/s Good Health Pvt. Ltd., no such
statement has come on behalf of the
employees which suggests complicity of
the applicants in the aforesaid case. The
Investigating Officer further records that
Rs. 16.35 crore have been transferred to
Kanika Dhingra from M/s Radhey Krishna
Marketing, which is the firm of son of
Sanjay Dhingra. All transactions were
through online mode i.e. bank to bank
transactions and the amount has been
returned / adjusted by the applicant as on
31.03.2024.

12. In CD Parcha No. 60, wherein
statements of employees of M/s Good
Health Pvt. Ltd., have been recorded, it has
been alleged that Rs. 289.14 crores have
been transferred from M/s Good Health
Industries Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Radhey Krishna
Marketing (firm of Mayank Dhingra). The
aforesaid amount was paid by M/s Good
Health to M/s Radhey Krishna Marketing
against the supply of milk, which is an
exempted item under GST, made by M/s
Radhey Krishna Marketing which was in
turn purchased by its own vendors. It is
relevant to point out that payments made by
applicant's (Mayank Dhingra's) firm to its
66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
vendors have already been demonstrated in
the
balance
sheet
annexed
in
bail
application.

13. The Investigating Officer has
recorded that Rs. 16.35 crore have been
transferred to Kanika Dhingra from M/s
Radhey Krishna Marketing, which is the
firm of Mayank Dhingra, through on-line
mode and Mayank Dhingra has received
back the adjusted amount.

14. Except the aforesaid, there is no
evidence against the applicant - Kanika
Dhingra in the entire case diary constituting
any offence of cheating anybody or
forging/ manipulating any documents or
hatching any conspiracy whatsoever. There
being no evidence of cheating anybody or
forging any document, the applicants are
entitled to be released on bail.

15. The applicants have been arrested
on 30.04.2024 without there being any
credible evidence against them.

16. The Investigating Officer has
falsely implicated the applicants in the
present case, without there being any
credible evidence against them. Neither any
collusion of applicants was found with any
of the fake firm nor disclosed any proof of
forging or creating any such document. It is
only money transaction from one account
to another which has been taken into
consideration for implicating the applicants
in the present case. Other basis of
implication is the SIM used in registration
of M/s YOYO Traders which belongs to
Deepak Murjani.

17. From the aforesaid facts, it cannot
be said that the applicants can be charged
of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B
IPC as there is no direct evidence to
establish conspiracy and there being no
agreement or connection with fake GST
firms. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the applicants has
placed reliance on a judgement of the
Supreme
Court
in
the
case
of
Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj
Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh1.

18. Learned counsel for the applicant
has elaborated his arguments submitting
that in the counter affidavit State has come
with Parcha Nos. 77, 78, 79 and 87. It says
that the husband of Kanika Dhingra,
namely, Sanjay Dhingra happens to be
owner of M/s Good Health Industries Pvt.
Ltd.2 and son of Kanika Dhingra, namely,
Mayank Dhingra is the owner of Radhey
Krishna Marketing Pvt. Ltd.3 Certain
amount has been transferred from Good
Health to the firm of Kanika Dhingra's son,
and from Radhey Krishna Marketing to the
personal account of Kanika Dhingra.

19. He further submits that as on date
no charge sheet has been submitted in the
matter of the applicant. Learned Senior
Counsel further argued that allegation is
against Good Health. As per allegations,
there are two companies, namely, YOYO
Traders and AKS Traders which are
mentioned in the charge sheet, which have
been formed by the accused persons who
have been chargesheeted in the first charge
sheet. Allegation is that from these traders,
transactions were made to Good Health.
Statements of employees show that M/s
Good Health was controlled by Sanjay
Dhingra. Perusal of record shows that some
complaints have been filed against the
applicant under GST Act. This allegation
has already been investigated by GST
Department. He has drawn attention of the
court to bail order dated 03.08.2023 passed
in the case of Sanjay Dhingra i.e. Criminal
9 All. Kanika Dhingra Vs. State of U.P.
67
Misc. Bail Application No. 32951 of 2023,
Sanjay Dhingra v. Union of India and
another.

20. Insofar as transfer of money is
concerned, money came from the company
of applicant's son. Sanjay Dhingra's
Company has 5000 vendors. Money was
deposited in Mayank Dhingra's Company
because milk was transacted by his
Company. Transaction reveals that son
gave money to his mother, which has been
returned to Mayank Dhingra's account.

21. Learned Senior Advocate argues
that transfer of money from Radhey
Krishna Marketing to Kanika Dhingra's
account and returning it back does not
amount to any offence.

22. Sri Manish Goel, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, AGA-I, Sri
Nitesh Srivastava, learned AGA and Sri
Mayank Awasthi, learned Brief Holder,
appearing for the State submits that nucleus
of the entire issue is that there is a Press
Reporter. He says that his PAN Card was
misused and on the basis of his PAN Card
two Firms were registered. Thus, offence
under the provisions of IPC stands
committed. On the basis of these fake
firms, a transaction is being done with the
Company, of which Sanjay Dhingra is a
Director. Each and every transaction is
separate set, for this they have to submit
separate return. Applicants have committed
offence of separate nature, so GST Rule
will not apply, but it will not take them out
of the offence that has been committed
under Indian Penal Code, 18604.

23. Elaborating the points, learned
Additional Advocate General has placed
following arguments:

A.
He
submits,
insofar
as
involvement of the applicants in the
offence is concerned, that they formed a
syndicate
and
their
modus
operandi
configures four segments: (i) assignment of
job of collection of SIM Cards and personal
data of people that have been uploaded on
the portal of Goods & Services Tax; (ii) to
use personal data for creation of fake firms
by uploading it on GST Portal; (iii) there
will be one actual firm which will be
working and money transaction will flow to
this actual firm and the input tax credit will
be availed; and (iv) distribution of
monetary benefits amongst all. He has very
strenuously argued that to divulge the
involvement of the applicants, the dots are
required to be joined to examine as to who
has done it.

B. It is submitted by Mr. Goel
that 2600 fake firms were found to be
registered and the input tax credit availed
with these 2600 firms was more than Rs.
40,00,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand
Crore). In the present matter anticipatory
bail application was filed by one of the coaccused persons and after due consideration
the Court has rejected the said anticipatory
bail application.

C. Learned Additional Advocate
General has further contended that from the
material as collected by the Investigating
Officer including statements, as recorded, it
is evident that it is a case where a number
of SIM Cards have been utilized, therefore,
it is a case where the entire family is
involved and if the bail is granted to one
person, it will perpetuate illegality.

D. The FIR was lodged by one
Saurabh Dwivedi, who is a journalist and
Editor of The Lallantop Internet News
Portal, about unknown GST registrations
applied on his PAN showing the addresses
of Punjab and Maharashtra. The said GST
registrations have been obtained without
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consensus. It has also been alleged that two
registrations are already authenticated for
Aadhaar verification whereas as on date no
email ID or mobile number is linked with
the Aaadhaar.

E. Learned Additional Advocate
General submits that the informant finds
his name as a business entity. There are
already two registrations for which he has
never applied and there are two different
addresses which have been shown. The
informant in the FIR has emphatically
stated that he never applied for such
registrations and there is no consensus on
his part. It is also stated that similar
registration has been applied in the UT of
Delhi, however, same has been rejected by
the GST authorities.

F. Mr. Goel submits that the
argument with regard to applicability of the
provisions of GST Act, the informant
levelled
allegations
of
misusing
his
Aadhaar
and
PAN
Cards
for
GST
registration, thus, FIR has rightly been
lodged under the relevant Sections 420,
467, 468, 471 IPC.

G. With regard to arguments of
learned counsel for the applicants that once
chargesheet
has
been
submitted
in
economic offence, the person should be
released, learned AAG contends that each
economic offence has distinct parameter
while consideration of bail, which can be
summarized in three counts: (i) Gravity of
Economic Offence, (ii) Impact, if the
person is released on bail or the person is
detained, and (iii) Interest of the Nation. It
is argued that economic offence is not
possible at the hands of one person and the
present case is an organized crime where
crores of government money has been
siphoned by registration of fake firms in
which all applicants are connected in one or
the other way.

H. With respect to consideration
of bail in offences related to GST, learned
AAG has placed reliance on various
judgements of the Apex Court in the cases
of Yogesh Jagish Kanodia v. State of
Maharashtra
and
another,5
Ajay
Khanna v. State Tax Anti Evasion
Bureau, Jabalpur (M.P.)6, Rajesh Jindal
v. Commissioner of Central Tax GST,
Delhi
(West)7,
Jagdish
Kanani
v.
Commissioner of CGST & Central
Excise, Indore8, Ranjeet @ Ranjeet
Singh v. Union of India9.

I. It has also been argued that the
Supreme Court has viewed the matters of
economic offences and laid down law
while considering bail applications in the
cases of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v.
Central Bureau of Investigation; Central
Bureau
of
Investigation10,
Central
Bureau of Investigation v. Ramendu
Chattopadhyay11,
Tarun
Kumar v.
Assistant
Director,
Directorate
of
Enforcement12, State of Bihar and
another v. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha
Rai13, Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central
Bureau
of
Investigation14,
Serious
Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin
ohari and another15, and State of
Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal
and another16.

24. As argued by Mr. Amit Singh
Chauhan, learned AGA-I and Sri Mayank
Awasthi, learned Brief Holder, for the
State, the following material has been
collected to show the involvement of the
applicants in the present case:

(i) C.D. Parcha No. 2 bears
details of Mobile No. 8800966916 which
was used to register the GST firms
mentioned in the FIR, its CDR17/ CAF18
9 All. Kanika Dhingra Vs. State of U.P.
69
reports were obtained from Surveillance
Cell.

(ii) CDR/ CAF reports were
received which reveal that accused's
location is of Pitampura Delhi, said
information forms part of C.D. Parcha No.
4, whereafter informer as per CD Parcha
No. 5 disclosed the names of Deepak
Murjhani and Yaseen Sheikh found to have
been involved in the crime.

(iii) CD-Parcha No. 7 says that on
the aforesaid information, police arrested
Ashwani Pandey and Yaseen Sheikh along
with
the
recovery
of
incriminating
materials i.e. SIM Cards of different
companies, laptops, Aadhaar Cards, PAN
Cards. On being checked the laptop, a
master file contained in folder at the
desktop, names of 1891 GST firms in
various names were found, and in another
master sheet contained in a separate folder
there were details of 680 GST firms. In the
said sheet, name of firms mentioned in the
FIR were also found. On the pointing out of
Ashwani Pandey and Yaseen Sheikh, the
investigating team reached at Madhu Vihar
office, where accused Deepak Murjhani,
Akash Saini, Vishal Singh, Atul Sengar,
Rajiv, Vineet were found and arrested
along with huge amount of money and
documents relating to fake GST firms.
Copy of recovery memo was duly received
by the accused persons putting their
signatures thereon. The arrested accused
persons, in their confessional statements,
disclosed names of Anchit Goyal, Pradeep
Goyal, Archit Goyal, Mayur alias Mani
Nagpal, Charu Nagpal and Deepak Singhal.
Consequently, Section 120B IPC was
added.

(iv) C.D. Parcha No. 11 shows
supplementary
statement
of
accused
persons in judicial custody, who said to
assist in recovery of incriminating articles
from concerned place and persons.

(v) C.D. Parcha No. 14 contains
majid-statement of Yaseen Sheikh, Rajiv
Jindal and Deepak Murjhani, who disclosed
names of Rajiv Maheshwari and Rahul
Gupta. In the same parcha the aforesaid
accused
persons
including
accused
Ashwani Pandey, Vishal and Akash, all of
them disclosed the complicity of Rajiv
Maheshwari, Rahul Gupta, Gaurav Singhal
and Gurmeet Singh Batra alias Sahil and
confessed that they used to generate fake
GST bills/ invoices in the names of
registered fake firms on the basis of fake
SIM and IDs.

(vi) C.D. Parcha No. 15 shows
that at the instance and pointing out of
Deepak Murjhani, Ashwani Pandey and
Yaseen Sheikh, arrest of Gaurav Singhal
and Gurmeet Singh Batra was effected on
10.06.2023 from the residence of Gaurav,
i.e., House No. 2/214, Sector-16, Rohini,
Delhi, along with huge recovery of
incriminating articles. Whereafter, the
investigating team reached at Gautam
Buddh Nagar along with accused taken in
police custody remand alongwith arrested
accused persons Gurmeet Singh Batra and
Gaurav Singhal, from where accused Rahul
Gupta and Rajiv Maheshwari were arrested
with several SIMs and other incriminating
material and the recovery memo was
handed over with consent to Rajiv.

(vii) C.D. Parcha No. 16 shows
that the accused taken in police custody
disclosed the names of Atul Gupta, Sumit
Garg alias Sumit alias Chacha, Mannan
Singhal,
Baldev
alias
Balli,
Ishwar,
Praveen, Sanjay Garg, Banti, Archit Goyal.
All of them confessed to prepare fake GST
invoices against the names of fake firms at
the office taken on rent by Deepak
Murjhani and Archit Goyal.

(viii) On being reached at the
office of Jiwalo India Pvt. Ltd. (Shop No.
1-F/A-16, Gurudwara Road, Madhu Vihar,
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Delhi), statement of property owner,
namely, Sahil Gupta S/o Sri Prakash
Chandra Gupta was recorded, which
revealed that the shop was taken on rent by
one Rajnish Kumar Jha along with Raj
Kumar Jha, for which a rent agreement was
executed in the name of Jiwalo India Pvt.
Ltd. The landlord identified the photograph
of accused Yaseen Sheikh to be of Rajnish
Kumar Jha, which shows the accused
impersonated himself to be Rajnish Kumar
Jha, thus it is a connecting chain in the
commission
of
present
offence.
The
information forms the part of CD Parch No.
17 (12.06.2023).

(ix) In C.D. Parcha No. 18
(13.06.2023) the Investigating Officer
found that fake GST firm - Tam Enterprises
mentioned in the FIR does not exist at
given address of Ludhiyana, Punjab,
whereas at the relevant place there exists a
shop in the name of Kings Footwear being
run by one Prabhujeet Singh.

(x) C.D. Parcha No. 22, dated
23.06.2023, shows arrest of Atul Gupta,
Sumit Garg alias Chacha and Mannan
Singhal along with recovery at two instance
of various fake invoices and cars, from
which
documents
relating
to
A.K.
Enterprises were found. Two separate
recovery memos were given to the arrested
accused
persons
which
bear
their
signatures. Statements of aforesaid accused
persons were recorded, who revealed
names of Goldi, Anchit, Anshul, Pradeep
Goyal, Praveen, Banti, Puneet, Ishwar,
Vikas Dabbas and Sanjay Garg, Mayur
alias Mani Nagpal, Charu Nagpal, Rohit
Nagpal, Deepak Singhal, Peetam, Mintu,
Montu, Ashish, Nandlal, Mahesh, Gaurav
Nagpal and Sahil, and admitted to have
been working together in this GST fake
registrations
and
for
earning
undue
monetary benefit.

(xi) In C.D. Parcha No. 24
(29.06.2023) the Investigating Officer
found that the fake mobile no. 8800966916,
which has been used in registration of GST
firms with PAN Number, mentioned in the
FIR, was found to have been used in four
different mobile sets bearing different IMEI
Numbers, therefore, the CDR/CAF report
reveals that one of the IMEI in which the
aforesaid mobile number was used, it was
recovered from the possession of accused
Yaseen Sheikh on 01.06.2023 as mobile set
Nokia 1423. CDR and CAF reports are
enclosed in the parcha, making evident the
complicity of accused Yaseen along with
all other accused persons.

(xii)
Parcha
No.
25
shows
(11.07.2023) the Investigating Officer
found that fake GST firm - Tam Traders
mentioned in the FIR does not exist at
given address of Maharashtra and the
documents shown were found to be forged.

(xiii) Parcha No. 29 shows
(07.07.2023) the details of persons in
whose names SIM Cards were procured,
have been recovered from the accused
Yaseen and Deepak Murjhani.

(xiv) Arrest of accused Ajay alias
Mintu, Amit alias Montu and Mahesh was
made, which is mentioned in C.D. Parcha
No. 30 (09.07.2023). Recovery of 07
mobile phones, 06 tax invoices, one car and
3 aadhaar cards was made from said
accused persons.

(xv) In the C.D. Parcha No. 31
the Investigating Officer found that the
registration of vehicle mentioned in the
invoices were found to be fake and
fabricated.

(xvi) In the C.D. Parcha No. 37
arrest of Preetam Garg alias Chacha is
mentioned along with recovery of fake tax
invoices, mobile, aadhaar and voter ID. In
his statement, the accused Preetam Garg
confessed that he along with his elder
9 All. Kanika Dhingra Vs. State of U.P.
71
brother Sanjay Garg went to Rohini, New
Delhi, where he was introduced with
Gaurav Singhal, Pradeep, Atul, Mannan,
Sumit, Vikas Dabas, Goldi and Nand Lal,
at the office of Arjit and Anchit.

(xvii) In the C.D. Parcha No. 39
the Investigating Officer recorded arrest of
Jatin Murjhani alias Rohit and Dolsy
Murjhani. In their confessional statements,
both have stated to have part of the entire
transaction by getting commission.

(xviii) In the C.D. Parcha No. 44
the Investigating Officer recorded arrest of
accused Nandlal alias Nandu father of coaccused Mahesh and recovery of tablet
(notepad). They informed that said tablet
and mobile belong to accused Deepak
Murjhani and Dolsy Murjhani. During his
confessional statement, he has stated that
the mobile recovered was to be returned to
Deepak Murjhani as it is used for the
purposes of obtaining OTP in registration
firms, as also used in collection of payment
from the customers.

(xix) In the C.D. Parcha No. 49
the Investigating Officer mentioned details
of bank accounts of accused persons.

(xx) In the C.D. Parcha No. 53
the Investigating Officer found the tax
invoice of Gurmet Singh Batra to be
fabricated.

(xxi)
C.D.
Parcha
No.
55
mentions that DGI, Ghaziabad Unit has
provided list of 1192 PAN Cards and on
verification from the PAN Card holders
they denied knowledge of any such
registration of firms.

(xxii) C.D. Parcha Nos. 61 to 65
the
Investigating
Officer
recorded
statements of affected persons and victims,
in whose names fake GST firms have been
registered.

(xxiii) C.D. Parcha No. 69 shows
that IMEI Numbers of recovered mobile
phones from accused persons were sent to
respective companies, namely, AirTel, Jio,
Vodafone Idea and on being run it was
found that said mobiles with certain IMEI
numbers were used in registration of a
number of fake firms. They provided
information
that
the
mobile
(IMEI)
recovered from accused Yaseen Sheikh was
used in 92 GST registration firms, from
Vishal Singh and Akash Saini in 53 GST
firms, from Atul Sengar in 45 GST firms,
and mobile (IMEI) recovered from Deepak
Murjhani was used in 139 fake GST firms.

(xxiv) In C.D. Parcha No. 72 the
Investigating Officer has referred the letter
sent to DGGI19, Unit Ghaziabad, in
response thereto he had relied that total
2528 GSTIN fake firms were identified
which are involved in ITC of Rupees Four
Thousand Crore, in respect to the same
different
Zonal
Units
have
arrested
accused, namely, Tushar Gupta, Sanjay
Dhingra, Rishabh Jain, Shubham Jindal,
Tarun Jindal, A. Suresh Kumar, Sanjay
Jindal and Ajay Sharma.

(xxv) In C.D. Parcha No. 75 the
Investigating Officer has requested DGGI,
Meerut Unit, Ghaziabad to provide entire
details along with charge sheet with regard
to Sanjay Dhingra, controller of M/s Good
Health Industries.

(xxvi) In C.D. Parcha No. 76, a
report from DGGI, Meerut Unit was
received along with charge sheet filed
against Sanjay Dhingra, which reveals that
Inspector, DGGI Office, Ghaziabad has
informed
that
accused
persons
were
arrested by the police of P.S. Sector-20
Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar and from
their possession list of 2600 fake GST
registration firms was recovered. On
thorough inquiry it was found that the
forged GST firms YOYO Traders has
transferred ITC to fake GST firm AKS
Traders, from which it was transferred to
M/s Good Health Industries Pvt. Ltd., and
72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
both YOYO Traders and AKS Traders
were found to be registered on fake
documents. A complete report of DGGI
office containing 28 pages is enclosed
along with the parcha. In the said report it
has been found that YOYO Traders and
AKS Traders are non-existing firms and
mobile numbers have been provided which
are used in the registration of fake firms.

(xxvii) C.D. Parcha No. 77 shows
that on physical verification Investigating
Officer found that both firms, namely,
YOYO Traders and AKS Traders are nonexistent at the principle place of business.

(xxviii) In C.D. Parcha No. 78,
the Investigating Officer mentions that
mobile number used in the registration of
GST firm YOYO Traders i.e. 9873797648
was found to be used in mobile having
IMEI No. 862625043825695, the said
mobile was recovered at the initial stage
from the accused Deepak Murjani.

(xxix) C.D. Parcha No. 79 shows
that I.O. verified about whereabouts of the
company but found the company YOYO
Traders
non-existent,
further
it
was
revealed that at the office of M/s Good
Health Industries Pvt. Ltd. situated at F-82,
Shivaji Palace, Rajauri Garden, Delhi,
accused Sanjay Dhingra is not present since
15-20 days and the name of the Company
has been changed to Live Light. Thereafter,
statements of employees of the Company
were recorded. They stated to have never
seen Sukhveer Yadav and Rajesh Yadav
who are also said to be Director of M/s
Good Health and they use to report to
Sanjay Dhingra who is owner of the said
firm. Further, the complicity of Kanika
Dhingra and Mayank Dhingra came to
light.

(xxx) In C.D. Parcha No. 81 the
I.O. recorded arrest of Ashish Allavadi
along with the recovery of driving licence
of accused Mannan Singhal and voter I.D.
of Baldev. In his statement, Ashish stated
that he used to bring payment of GST
commissions and he has confessed the
names of his cousin brother Amit alias
Montu, Arjit, Anchit, Atul, Mannan,
Baldev, Nandlal, Ajay, Ishwar, Sanjay
Garg, Gaurav Singhal, Preetam alias
Chacha and others in the commission of the
offence.

(xxxi) C.D. Parcha No. 82 shows
the entry of bank account of accused
persons wherein concerned GST ITC
transaction was found, as such the accounts
were requested to be ceased by the Bank
under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C.

(xxxii) In C.D. Parcha No. 84 the
I.O. shows arrest of accused Praveen
Kumar with the recovery of mobile phone,
Debit Card of Atul Gupta and two tax
invoices. In his confessional statement he
admitted complicity in the offence with
other accused persons including Rajiv
Jindal. He further disclosed the fact that
with regard to the fake invoices GST
Department
has
initiated
proceedings
against the accused, in which penalty of Rs.
12 lacs was recovered from the company.

(xxxiii) C.D. Parcha No.