# Rajiv Jindal v. State of U.P. 90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 89
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-31
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53010 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajiv-jindal-v-state-of-u-p-90-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-52532
- **Pages:** 46

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 100,
161, 167 & 177 - Indian Evidence Act,
1872 - Sections 3, 4, 25 & 27 - FIR was
lodged by one journalist and editor -
Allegations that fake GST registration
applied in his name with PAN and Aadhaar
Card by anonymous person and got two
GST firms registered - The said GST
registrations have been obtained without
his knowledge and consensus - During
investigation it was found that larger
nexus works for having benefit of input
tax
credit
-
The
offence
has
been
committed
in
an
organized
and
synchronized manner, wherein fake and
bogus invoices have been created to cover
money trail and goods supply, money
transactions are there with forged firms.
(Para 111)

Held,
after
registration
of
FIR,
Investigating Officer arrested two accused
who disclosed about office where work of
firm
was
being
done
-
Thereafter,
Investigating
Officer
reached
office
premises, where he found other persons
working for firm of arrested accused
persons - Laptops, mobiles, SIM Cards,
fake invoices were recovered - Therefore,
contention by applicants regarding fact
that confessional St.ments can be taken
as a piece of evidence, has no relevance.
(Para 126)

On ground of jurisdiction as contended by
applicant,
Court
found
that
though
registration of fake firms were at Punjab
and
Maharasthra,
complainant
was
resident of New Delhi and FIR lodged at
Gautam Buddh Nagar, genuineness of
complaint
questioning
territorial
jurisdiction cannot be raised on basis of
occurrence as it was not at one place
where GST firm was registered but its
connections with other fake firms are also
required to be seen. (Para 144)

Bail applications rejected. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,750 of 140,984. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39750 for what follows._

9 All. Rajiv Jindal Vs. State of U.P.
89

21. As seen earlier the scope of
Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been
determined by various holdings of the
Supreme Court and the High Courts. In
particular, the nuanced applicability of
Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in
relation to the offences under the POCSO
Act has been considered by this Court in
Monish (supra) for the purposes of grant
of bail of an accused.

22. The age of the victim in POCSO
Act cases has to be determined in light of and
upon holistic examination of the above said
provisions, namely, Section 94 of Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of children) Act,
2015 and Section 27 of POCSO Act read
with Section 164A(2)(3) of Cr.P.C. The
criteria and the documents referenced in all
the aforesaid provisions are liable to be
considered to determine the age of the victim
while deciding the bail applications under the
POCSO Act. The said statutory provisions
mandate that the consideration of the age of
the victim of a POCSO Act offence has to
made in a manner which implements the
above said provisions in an integrated manner
and neglects no provision.

23. The documents mentioned in Section
94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
children) Act, 2015 cannot be neglected from
consideration. Similarly, the provisions of
Section 27 of the POCSO Act read with
Section 164A(2)(3) of the Cr.P.C. cannot be
rendered otiose by non consideration of the
medical report determining the age of the
victim, or on account of failure to submit a
reasoned medical report determination of age
of the victims.

24. The Principal Secretary, Medical
Health and Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh
and Director General, Medical and Health,
Uttar Pradesh, shall ensure that the medical
specialists who determine the age of the
victims/medical reports under the POCSO
Act are properly trained and the said
medical reports are drawn up after giving
reasons for the conclusions consistent with
the mandate of Section 27 of the POCSO
Act read with Section 164A (2)(3) of the
Cr.P.C.

25. After composite consideration of
the law in Monish (supra), Aman (supra)
and the provisions of Section 27 of the
POCSO Act read with Section 164A(2)(3)
of the Cr.P.C., this Court in Anurudh5
issued
appropriate
directions.
The
directions
in
Anurudh
(supra)
are
reiterated.

26. The Director General of Police,
Government of U.P. Lucknow, Principal
Secretary, Medical Health and Family
Welfare, Uttar Pradesh and Director
General, Medical and Health, Uttar Pradesh
are directed to ensure compliance of the
judgements rendered in Monish (supra),
Aman (supra), Anurudh (supra) and the
instant case.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 89
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2024

BEFORE

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

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53010 of
2023
With other connected cases

Rajiv Jindal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party
90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicant:
Arvind Srivastava, Ashok Kumar Dubey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 100,
161, 167 & 177 - Indian Evidence Act,
1872 - Sections 3, 4, 25 & 27 - FIR was
lodged by one journalist and editor -
Allegations that fake GST registration
applied in his name with PAN and Aadhaar
Card by anonymous person and got two
GST firms registered - The said GST
registrations have been obtained without
his knowledge and consensus - During
investigation it was found that larger
nexus works for having benefit of input
tax
credit
-
The
offence
has
been
committed
in
an
organized
and
synchronized manner, wherein fake and
bogus invoices have been created to cover
money trail and goods supply, money
transactions are there with forged firms.
(Para 111)

Held,
after
registration
of
FIR,
Investigating Officer arrested two accused
who disclosed about office where work of
firm
was
being
done
-
Thereafter,
Investigating
Officer
reached
office
premises, where he found other persons
working for firm of arrested accused
persons - Laptops, mobiles, SIM Cards,
fake invoices were recovered - Therefore,
contention by applicants regarding fact
that confessional St.ments can be taken
as a piece of evidence, has no relevance.
(Para 126)

On ground of jurisdiction as contended by
applicant,
Court
found
that
though
registration of fake firms were at Punjab
and
Maharasthra,
complainant
was
resident of New Delhi and FIR lodged at
Gautam Buddh Nagar, genuineness of
complaint
questioning
territorial
jurisdiction cannot be raised on basis of
occurrence as it was not at one place
where GST firm was registered but its
connections with other fake firms are also
required to be seen. (Para 144)

Bail applications rejected. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dinesh Gupta Vs St. of U.P.& anr., 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 34, (Para 24, 36, 38)

2. Manoj Kumar Sharma & ors. Vs St. of
Chhattisgarh & anr., (2016) 9 SCC 1, (Para 27
and 28)

3. Haricharan Kurmi & anr. Vs St. of Bihar, AIR
1964 SC 1184 : 1964 SCC OnLine SC 28, (Para
13)

4. Y Abraham Ajith & ors. Vs Inspector of Police,
Chennai & another, (2004) 8 SCC 100

5. Haricharan Kurmi & anr. Vs St. of Bihar, 1964
SCC OnLine SC 28

6. Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Pallulabid Ahmad
Arimutta, (2022) 12 SCC 633

7. U.O.I. (NCB) etc. Vs Khalil Uddin etc, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 2109, (Para 8)

8. Bharat Chaudhary Vs U.O.I., (2021) 20 SCC
50

9. Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal Vs U.O.I., (2021)
20 SCC 57

10. Dinesh Kumar Vs St. of H.P., (2020) SCC
OnLine HP 899

11. Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs St. of
Guj., (2019) 16 SCC 547

12. Surinder Kumar Khanna Vs Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence, (2018) 8 SCC 271

13. Rajender Singh & ors. Vs St. of Bihar, (2000)
4 SCC 298

14. Ramashish Yadav & ors. Vs St. of Bihar,
(1999) 8 SCC 555

15. Kehar Singh Vs St. (Delhi Admn.), (1988) 3
SCC 609
9 All. Rajiv Jindal Vs. State of U.P.
91
16. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs St. of Mah.,
(2021) 2 SCC 427

17. Sanjay Chandra Vs CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 :
(2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 26 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S)

18. Susanta Ghosh Vs St. of W.B., (2012) 2 SCC
680 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 979

19. Satender Kumar Antil Vs C.B.I., (2022) 10
SCC 51

20. St. of Har. Vs Ram Singh, (2002) 2 SCC 426

21. Sanju Bansal Vs St. of U.P., 2024 LiveLaw
(SC) 467

22. Rajesh & anr. Vs St. of M.P., (2023) SCC
OnLine SC 1202

23. Avtar Singh Vs St. of Pun., (2002) 7 SCC 419

24. Yogendra Kumar Mishra Vs St. of U.P.,
2011:AHC:52011

25. Mohd. Muslim Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), 2023
SCC OnLine SC 352

26.
Manish
Sisodia
Vs
Directorate
of
Enforcement, (Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No.
8772 of 2024), decided on 09.08.2024

27. Navaneethakrishnan Vs St. By Inspector of
Police, AIR 2018 SC 2027

28. Mohd. Muslim Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 260

29. U.O.I. Vs K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713

30. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs Rajesh Ranjan @
Pappu Yadav & anr., (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004
SCC (Cri) 1977, (Para 11)

31. Masroor Vs St. of U.P.& anr., (2009) 14 SCC 286

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

33. Mehboob Ali & anr. Vs St. of Raj., (2016) 14
SCC 640

34.
P.
Chidambaram
Vs
Directorate
of
Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24

35. Sunil Kumar Vs St. of Bihar & anr., (2022) 3
SCC 245 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 603 : 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 88

36. Shahzad Alam Vs St. of U.P., 2020 SCC
OnLine All 1901 : (2020) 35 GSTL 529

37. Govind Agarwal Vs St. of U.P., 2020 SCC
OnLine All 1902 : (2020) 35 GSTL 551

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45.
Tarun
Kumar
Vs
Assistant
Director,
Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1486

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

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

48. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs Nittin
ohari & anr., (2019) 9 SCC 165
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
49. St. of Gujarat Vs Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal &
anr., (1987) 2 SCC 364

50. UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services
Limited Vs Extra Tech World and Ors, (Bombay
High Court in Interim Application (L) No. 564 of
2024 in Commercial Intellectual Property Rights
Suit (L) No. 537 of 2024)

51. Pulukuri Kotayya & ors. Vs King Emperor,
[P.C. App. No. 37 of 1946, 19th Dec. 1946
(Indian Appeal Vol. LXXIV Page 65)]

52. St. of U.P.Vs Deoman Upadhyaya, 1960 SCC
OnLine SC 8 : AIR 1960 SC 1125

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

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

55. 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)

56. Perumal Raja @ Perumal Vs St., Rep. By
Inspector of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 8, (Para
22, 23)

57.
Gurcharan
Singh
Vs
St.
(Delhi
Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118, (Para 29)

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

59.
P.
Chidambaram
Vs
Directorate
of
Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791 : (2020) 4 SCC
(Cri) 646, (Para 23)

60. 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 Gataum Buddh
Nagar, and (iii) FIR/Case Crime No. 255 of
2023, dated 08.06.203, under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC, Noida Sector20, District Gataum Buddh Nagar.
2. For ready reference, it would be
appropriate to refer the details of bail
applications preferred by the applicants
under relevant sections, detailing case
crime numbers, police stations and districts
in the form of a chart, which are being
summarized as under:

Sl.
No.
Bail
Applica
tion No.
Applic
ant's
Name
Case
Crime
No.
Under
Sections
Police
Station
Dist
rict
53010/2
023
Rajiv
Jindal
0248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
52966/2
023
Rajiv
Jindal
255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
53475/2
023
Rajiv
Jindal
203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
55125/2
023
Manan
Singhal
248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
55131/2
023
Manan
Singhal
203/2023 420,
467,
Noida
SectorGata
um
9 All. Rajiv Jindal Vs. State of U.P.
93
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
20
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
51907/2
023
Mahesh 203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
51920/2
023
Mahesh 255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
52254/2
023
Mahesh 248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
53246/2
023
Nand
Kishore
203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
50362/2
023
Nand
Kishore
248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
50510/2
023
Nand
Kishore
255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar

55268/2
023
Manan
Singhal
255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
55161/2
023
Sumit
Garg @
Chacha
255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
IPC
Nag
ar
55235/2
023
Sumit
Garg @
Chacha
248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar

55245/2
023
Sumit
Garg @
Chacha
203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
6728/20
24
Dolsy
Murjha
ni
203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
8746/20
24
Dolsy
Murjha
ni
248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
9061/20
24
Dolsy
Murjha
ni
255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
10526/2
024
Jatin
Murjani
203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
10527/2
024
Jatin
Murjani
248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
10528/2
024
Jatin
Murjani
255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ar
6882/20
24
Gaurav
Singh
@
Gaurav
Singhal
255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
5007/20
24
Amit @
Moti @
Motu
248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
50753/2
023
Akash
Saini
255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
10603/2
024
Akash
Saini
203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
8643/20
24
Akash
Saini
248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
11406/2
024
Ajay @
Mintu
248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
11452/2
024
Ajay @
Mintu
203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
11581/2
024
Ajay @
Mintu
255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
50337/2
023
Vishal
203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
Noida
SectorGata
um
Bud
& 120B
IPC
20
dh
Nag
ar
2994/20
24
Vishal
248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
2742/20
24
Vishal
255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
525/202
4
Praveen
Kumar
255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar

561/202
4
Praveen
Kumar
248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
56396/2
023
Praveen
Kumar
203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
8136/20
24
Piyush
Kumar
Gupta
203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
52956/2
023
Ashwan
i
255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
53087/2
023
Ashwan
i
203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
Noida
SectorGata
um
Bud
9 All. Rajiv Jindal Vs. State of U.P.
95
& 120B
IPC
20
dh
Nag
ar
53088/2
023
Ashwan
i
248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
18705/2
024
Atul
Gupta
255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
12687/2
024
Pritam
Garg @
Chacha
248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
13150/2
024
Pritam
Garg @
Chacha
255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
13386/2
024
Pritam
Garg @
Chacha
203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
16146/2
024
Gaurav
Singh
@
Gaurav
Singhal
203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
16288/2
024
Gaurav
Singh
@
Gaurav
Singhal
248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
16413/2
024
Atul
Gupta
248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
16981/2
024
Amit @
Moti @
Motu
255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
16999/2
024
Amit @
Moti @
Motu
203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
17749/2
024
Rakesh
Dialani
203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
17802/2
024
Rakesh
Dialani
255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
17809/2
024
Rakesh
Dialani
248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
18616/2
024
Atul
Gupta
203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
19304/2
024
Dilip
Sharma
203/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
26838/2
024
Piyush
Kumar
Gupta
255/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
IPC
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
ar
26942/2
024
Piyush
Kumar
Gupta
248/2023 420,
467,
468, 471
& 120B
Noida
Sector20
Gata
um
Bud
dh
Nag
96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
IPC
ar
3. 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,
Gataum 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
obtained 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.
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.
4. 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,
Gataum 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.
5. 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, Gataum 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.
9 All. Rajiv Jindal Vs. State of U.P.
97
He has stated that his documents have been
misused. Hence, the FIR has been lodged.
6. The applicants have preferred
bail
applications
in
respective
First
Information Reports/ Case Crime Numbers,
details whereof according to case crime
number, are being enumerated in following
chart:
(i) Bail Applications in FIR/Case
Crime No. 203 of 2023, dated 04.05.2023:
Sl. No.
Bail
Application
No.
Applicant's Name
1.
 53475/2023
Rajiv Jindal
2.
 13386/2024
Pritam Garg @ Chacha
3.
 16146/2024
Gaurav
Singh
@
Gaurav
Singhal
4.
 16999/2024
Amit @ Moti @ Motu
5.
 17749/2024
Rakesh Dialani
6.
 19304/2024
Dilip Sharma
7.
 18616/2024
Atul Gupta
8.
 55131/2023
Manan Singhal
9.
 55245/2023
Sumit Garg @ Chacha

10. 56396/2023
Praveen Kumar
11. 8136/2024
Piyush Kumar Gupta
12. 53087/2023
Ashwani
13. 50337/2023
Vishal
14. 10603/2024
Akash Saini
15. 11452/2024
Ajay @ Mintu
16. 10526/2024
Jatin Murjani
17. 51907/2023
Mahesh
18. 53246/2023
Nand Kishore
19. 6728/2024
Dolsy Murjhani
(ii) Bail Applications in FIR/Case
Crime No.248/2023, dated 01.06.2023:
Sl. No.
Bail
Application
No.
Applicant's Name
1.
 53010/2023
Rajiv Jindal
2.
 12687/2024
Pritam Garg @ Chacha
3.
 16288/2024
Gaurav
Singh
@
Gaurav Singhal
4.
 16413/2024
Atul Gupta
5.
 17809/2024
Rakesh Dialani
6.
 55125/2023
Manan Singhal
7.
 55235/2023
Sumit Garg @ Chacha
8.
 561/2024
Praveen Kumar
9.
 53088/2023
Ashwani
10. 5007/2024
Amit @ Moti @ Motu
11. 2994/2024
Vishal
12. 8643/2024
Akash Saini
13. 11406/2024
Ajay @ Mintu
14. 8746/2024
Dolsy Murjhani
98 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15. 10527/2024
Jatin Murjani
16. 52254/2023
Mahesh
17. 50362/2023
Nand Kishore
18. 26942/2024
Piyush Kumar Gupta
(iii)
Bail
Applications
in
FIR/Case Crime No.255/2023, dated
08.06.2023:
Sl. No.
Bail Application
No.
Applicant's Name
1.
 13150/2024
Pritam Garg @ Chacha
2.
 16981/2024
Amit @ Moti @ Motu
3.
 17802/2024
Rakesh Dialani
4.
 18705/2024
Atul Gupta
5.
 55268/2023
Manan Singhal
6.
 55161/2023
Sumit Garg @ Chacha
7.
 525/2024
Praveen Kumar
8.
 52956/2023
Ashwani
9.
 6882/2024
Gaurav Singh @ Gaurav
Singhal
10. 2742/2024
Vishal
11. 50753/2023
Akash Saini
12. 11581/2024
Ajay @ Mintu
13. 9061/2024
Dolsy Murjhani
14. 10528/2024
Jatin Murjani
15. 52966/2023
Rajiv Jindal
16. 51920/2023
Mahesh
17. 50510/2023
Nand Kishore
18. 26838/2024
Piyush Kumar Gupta
7. Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned
counsel for the applicant submits that
instant bail application being Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 51920 of 2023
has been preferred by the applicant -
Mahesh with a prayer to release him on bail
in Case Crime No. 255 of 2023, under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC,
Police Station Noida Sector-20, District
Gautam Buddh Nagar.
8. As per prosecution story the
informant on being searched on internet
found that three fictitious firms have been
formed with his PAN and three GST
Numbers have been obtained, whereas the
applicant neither got any such firm opened
nor obtained any GST Number, thus he
prayed for legal action against the accused
who have manipulated and misused his
documents and lodged the first information
report on 08.06.2023.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in the present
case. He is not named in first information
report1. Placing forth the facts, learned
counsel next submits that on 07.07.2023
when the applicant came back from Delhi
after
appearing
in
a
competitive
examination of IELTS, he along with his
brother (deponent) were quizzed and
exerted pressure to produce their father,
however, on being asked the reason, the
applicant was challaned on 09.07.2023.
9 All. Rajiv Jindal Vs. State of U.P.
99
10. To show the fair background of the
applicant, it is stated that the applicant is a
student
of
K.R.
Mangalam
University,
Gurugram, State of Haryana, he is aged about 20
years and is a meritorious student. However, due
to arrest he has missed his one semester. In
paragraph-15 of the application, the applicant has
averred that he is a heart patient and his bypass
surgery has been done, for the said purpose he
has been undergoing medical treatment at
Narayan Hrudayalaya Super Speciality Clinic &
Diagnostic Centre, Bangalore.
11.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant contended that there is no
evidence in the entire case diary against the
applicant as nothing has been recovered
from him to prove the offence against him.
However,
the
chargesheet
has
been
submitted on 03.10.2023 only the basis of
alleged circumstantial evidence. It is
argued on behalf of the applicant that prima
face if no offence is made out against the
applicant, he should not ordinarily be
apprehended. Article 21 of the Constitution
of India mandates that no person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established
by law. The basic rule is to release him on
bail
unless
there
are
circumstances
suggesting the possibility of his fleeing
from justice or thwarting the course of
justice.
12.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant contends that the complainant is
resident of New Delhi whereas he has filed
first information report in Gautam Buddh
Nagar without there being any reason as to
why the applicant came to Noida to lodge
the FIR. He raises question over the
genuineness of the complaint stating that
the territorial jurisdiction is decided on the
basis of place of occurrence. In support of
his submission, learned counsel for the
applicant
has
placed
reliance
on
a
judgement of the Supreme Court in the case
of Dinesh Gupta v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another2. Paragraph Nos. 24,
36 & 38 of the said judgement are quoted
as under:
 "24.
The
falsehood
in
the
complaint, filed with reference to the
addresses of the accused, was established at
the time of filing of charge-sheet. Whereas
in the FIR, the addresses of all the accused
given were incomplete merely mentioning
the address as 'Sector 20, Gautam Budh
Nagar', in the charge-sheet addresses of not
only the appellants, namely, Rajesh Gupta
and Dinesh Gupta, were found to be 'D393, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, even
Sushil Gupta and Baljeet Singh were also
found to be residents of New Delhi. ...
*** *** ***
*** *** ***
 36. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we find that the FIR in
question, if proceeded further, will result in
absolute abuse of process of court. It is a
clear case of malicious prosecution. Hence,
the same is required to be quashed.
 *** *** ***
 *** *** ***
 38. Before parting with the
judgment, we are reminded of the opening
remarks. The respondent Karan Gambhir
having misused the legal system by lodging
false and frivolous complaint with nondisclosure of necessary facts must bear its
costs. The registration of FIR at Noida
despite
having
registered
offices
of
100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
companies in question at Delhi shows a
wishful
forum
shopping
by
the
Complainant, casting serious doubts on
their bona fides. The Complainant had
already
sought
remedy
against
amalgamation order before the High Court
and the High Court had dismissed the
same. However, Complainant chose to
again use judicial mechanisms to raise his
grievances. A criminal complaint was filed
and FIR was registered against appellants
despite the commercial nature of dispute.
Such ill intended acts of abuse of power
and of legal machinery seriously affect the
public trust in judicial functioning. Thus,
we find ourselves constrained to impose
cost on Complainant with a view to curb
others from such acts leading to abuse of
judicial remedies."
13. It is also contended that neither
FIR has been lodged at the concerned
police station nor investigation has been
done by it, thus, it is a malicious
prosecution. To strengthen his argument,
learned counsel for the applicant has
referred two judgements of the Supreme
Court in the cases of Manoj Kumar
Sharma
and
others
v.
State
of
Chhattisgarh and another3. Relevant
Paragraph Nos. 27 & 28 of the said
judgement are thus:
 "27. The territorial jurisdiction of
a court with regard to a criminal offence
would be decided on the basis of the place
of occurrence of the incident. In the instant
case, the suicide was committed at Ambala.
Ambala Police closed the case after
fulfilling the requirements of Section 174
of the Code holding that there was no foul
play in the incident and also there was no
requirement of lodging FIR under Section
154 as none of the family members of the
deceased raised any suspicion over the
death even though the death was committed
within seven years of marriage. Also, there
is no evidence of it being a continuing
offence. Hence, the offence alleged cannot
be said to have been committed wholly or
partly within the local jurisdiction of the
Magistrate's Court at Durg. Prima facie,
none of the ingredients constituting the
offence can be said to have occurred within
the local jurisdiction of that Court.
 28. In the case on hand, as per the
materials on record, in Crime No. 194 of
2005, charge-sheet has been filed and the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg has
taken cognizance of the proceedings. In the
present fact situation, we are of the
considered opinion that the court at Durg
has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case
and the proceedings are liable to be
quashed on the ground of lack of territorial
jurisdiction since the entire cause of action
for the alleged offence had purportedly
arisen in the city of Ambala."
14. He further contends that no
recovery
has
been
made
from
the
applicant's possession and the alleged
recovery is fake and it does not make any
case against the applicant.
15. Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned
counsel argued on behalf of the applicant -
Rajiv Jindal in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application Nos. 53010 of 2023, 53475 of
2023, 52966 of 2023; applicant - Mahesh
in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.
51907 of 2023, 51920 of 2023, 52254 of
2023, and applicant-Nand Kishore in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.
53246 of 2023, 50362 of 2023 and 50510
of 2023.

16. Placing reliance upon a judgement
of the Supreme Court in the case of
9 All. Rajiv Jindal Vs. State of U.P.
101
Haricharan Kurmi and another v. State
of
Bihar4,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants has drawn attention of the Court
to Paragraph-13 and argued that it has been
held in the said judgement that Section 30
of the Indian Evidence Act, 18725 provides
that the court may take confession into
consideration and thereby no doubt, makes
it evidence on which the court may act; but
the section does not say that the confession
amounts to proof. Relevant excerpt of
Paragraph-13 of said judgement is quoted
herein below:

"13. ... Section 30, however,
provides that the court may take the
confession into consideration and thereby,
no doubt, makes it evidence on which the
court may act; but the section does not say
that the confession is to amount to proof.
Clearly there must be other evidence. The
confession is only one element in the
consideration of all the facts proved the
case; it can be put into the scale and
weighed with the other evidence". It would
be noticed that as a result of the provisions
contained in Section 30, the confession has
no doubt to be regarded as amounting to
evidence in a general way, because
whatever is considered by the court is
evidence;
circumstances
which
are
considered by the court as well as
probabilities do amount to evidence in that
generic sense. Thus, though confession
may be regarded as evidence in that generic
sense because of the provisions of Section
30, the fact remains that it is not evidence
as defined by Section 3 of the Act. The
result, therefore, is that in dealing with a
case against an accused person, the court
cannot start with the confession of a coaccused person; it must begin with other
evidence adduced by the prosecution and
after it has formed its opinion with regard
to the quality and effect of the said
evidence, then it is permissible to turn to
the confession in order to receive assurance
to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial
mind is about to reach on the said other
evidence. ..."

17. Learned counsel for the applicants
has vehemently argued that with respect to
grant of bail the applicants cannot tamper
any evidence and a case of bail is made in
their favour as nothing, even prima facie, is
available on record which may require the
applicant to be apprehended, as also it is a
settled law that the bail is rule and jail is
exception.

18. Placing the three first information
reports bearing Case Crime Nos. 203 of
2023, 248 of 2023 and 255 of 2023, lodged
by Saurabh Dwivedi, Sumit Yadav and
Arvind Kumar Yadav, respectively, learned
counsel for the applicants submits that
neither the permanent addresses of the
informants are shown, nor the alleged
forged firms registered on the PAN Card
and Aadhaar Card is within the limits of
State of U.P., therefore, the registration of
proceedings in the State of U.P. is without
jurisdiction
and
the
investigation
so
conducted by the officers is also without
jurisdiction and is in teeth of Section 177
Cr.P.C. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the applicants has relied
upon the judgements of Supreme Court in
the case of Dinesh Gupta v. State of U.P.6,
Manoj Kumar Sharma & others v. State
of Chhattisgarh & another7, and Y
Abraham Ajith & others v. Inspector of
Police, Chennai & another8.

19. The entire investigation started from
an input by a secret informer and then on the
basis of confessional statement of co-accused
persons, the name of other co-accused persons
came into light, thus, the implication of the
102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicants on the basis of confessional
statements of co-accused cannot be taken as a
substantial piece of evidence. In support of his
submissions,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants has relied upon the judgements
of Supreme Court in the cases of
Haricharan Kurmi & another v. State of
Bihar9, Narcotics Control Bureau v.
Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta10, Union of
India (NCB) etc. v. Khalil Uddin etc.11,
Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India12,
Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal v. Union of
India13, Dinesh Kumar v. State of
Himachal
Pradesh14,
Dipakbhai
Jagdishchandra
Patel
v.
State
of
Gujarat15, and Surinder Kumar Khanna
v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence16.

20. From the investigation as carried out,
there is no evidence against the applicants
regarding commission of the alleged offence
as there is no allegation against the applicants
of any overact or any meeting of mind
between the applicants or other co-accused
persons for commission of the offence. Thus,
no offence under the relevant Sections is made
out against the applicants. He has relied upon
the judgements of Supreme Court in the cases
of Rajender Singh & others v. State of
Bihar17, Ramashish Yadav & others v.
State of Bihar18, and Kehar Singh v.
State (Delhi Admn.)19.

21. As the applicants have not taken
the benefit of any document (ITC) nor has
facilitated any person in any manner to take
these documents, hence no proceeding,
against the applicants under the Goods and
Services Tax Act20, can be initiated. In the
entire investigation there is no allegation
against the applicants that they have
prepared incorrect Form GSTR-I under
Rule 59(1) of the Central Goods and
Services Tax Rules, 201721 or the Form
GSTR-2A under Rule 60(2) of the Rules,
2017, or the Form GSTR-2B under Rule
60(7) of the Rules, 2017 or the Form
GSTR-3B of the Rules, 2017.

22. There is no case of theft of GST,
as a result no criminal proceedings under
Section 132 of the GST Act has been
initiated
against
the
applicant.
Even
otherwise, an elaborated provision has been
given in Rule-8, 9 & 10 of the Rules, 2017
for registration of firm and it is clearly
stipulated that the registration can be done
only after PAN is validated online by a
Common
Portal
from
the
Database
maintained by Central Board of Direct
Taxes22 and the mobile number is verified
with One Time Password sent on the same
mobile number. No such evidence has been
collected, therefore, the implication of the
applicant is false.

23. The Bail is the Rule and Jail is an
exception. Said view has been taken by the
Apex Court in the cases of Arnab
Manoranjan
Goswami
v.
State
of
Maharashtra23,
Sanjay
Chandra
v.
CBI24, Susanta Ghosh v. State of W.B.25,
and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI26.

24. Relying upon the the judgement of
the Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana v. Ram Singh27, learned counsel
for the applicants submits that no evidence
exists and no recovery against the applicant
Rajiv Jindal, co-accused Mahesh and Nand
Kishore, for the alleged forged GST papers
and for misappropriation of any tax or use
of any ITC has been collected. The
recoveries shown are planted without there
being any independent witness and these
recoveries are held to be having no
credibility and these recoveries cannot be
taken as a piece of credible evidence.
9 All. Rajiv Jindal Vs. State of U.P.
103

25. Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Prakhar Saran
Srivastava, learned Advocate argued the
matter on behalf of the applicant - Manan
Singhal in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
Nos. 55125 of 2023, 55131 of 2023, 55268
of 2023, and applicant - Sumit Garg alias
Chacha in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
Nos. 55161 of 2023, 55235 of 2023, and
55245 of 2023.

26. Learned Senior Counsel submits
that pursuant to the first information
reports, the Investigating Officer proceeded
with
the
investigation
on
receiving
information about the accused Yaseen from
an informer. Accordingly, Yaseen and
Ashwani Pandey were arrested from Film
City Flyover. Rs. 10,000/-, 5 SIM Cards,
Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and a mobile
phone were recovered from Ashwani
Pandey. Two mobile phones, Rs. 1,88,000;
5 keypad mobile phones, 12 SIM Cards and
a
laptop
were
recovered
from
the
possession of Yaseen. A data of 1891 and
680 firms was found on different excel
sheets in the laptop. Fake PAN Cards,
Aadhaar Cards and photographs were also
found in pdf file. The data of informants of
Case Crime Nos. 203 of 2023 and 248 of
2023 was also found in the laptop.

27. The accused Yaseen allegedly
confessed that they worked in a group and
their office is at Madhu Vihar, New Delhi.
The Investigating Officer proceeded to the
said office and arrested Deepak Murjhani,
Vinita, Vishal Singh, Akash Saini, Atul
Sengar and Rajiv therefrom. Total recovery
of Rs. 12,66,000/-, 24 computer systems, 4
laptops, 30 mobile phones, 50 fake PAN
and Aadhaar Cards, 60 SIM Cards and 3
cards parked near the office was made.

28. The aforesaid arrested persons
confessed about the involvement of Anchit
Goyal, Pradeep Goyal, Archit, Mayur,
Charu Nagpal, Rohit Nagpal and Deepak
Singhal, to whom the alleged firms were
allegedly sold. Names of applicants
Manan and Sumit have not been
surfaced till date.

29. On 05.06.2023 and 08.06.2023,
supplementary
statements
of
arrested
accused persons were recorded, wherein
name of Manan and Sumit have not been
mentioned.

30.