Shashi Kant Gupta v. State

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicants submitted that there are no direct or indirect allegations against the applicants in the instant FIR. It was further submitted that the applicants have always joined the investigation in compliance of notice issued under Section 160 of the CrPC. It was further submitted that in pursuance to the interim protection granted by this Court, the applicants have joined the investigation and have produced all the documents in their possession to the Investigating Officer.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has filed objections to the status report as well as additional status report filed before this Court stating that the claim of the Investigating Officer that the present applicants are not co-operating with the investigation is false. In the objections dated 10.03.2023 on behalf of Shashi Kant Gupta, filed to the status report before this Court, the stand of the applicant is “It is humbly submitted that the applicant and/or his firms ever dealt in any manner whatsoever with M/s Madhu Enterprises, the same is matter of records. The said records must be available with the GST Department, Jamshedpur who conducted the raid at both the office premises of the firms maintained by the applicant and his son”. It was further submitted that income tax returns of the firms for 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 have been provided to the Investigating Officer. It was further pointed out that all the documents which were seized from the office of the applicants, as pointed out hereinabove, are with the GST Department, Jamshedpur and the Investigating Officer has not made any efforts to obtain them from the said department.

5. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment dated 03.10.2023 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3051-3052 of 2023 titled ‘Pankaj Bansal v. Union of Indian and Ors’ (2023INSC866) passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and in particular, the following paragraph thereof:

6. Per contra learned APP for the State submitted that during the course of the investigation, records of business transactions relating to the firm namely M/s Madhu Enterprises were obtained from the GST Department, Jamshedpur. It was found that the said fraudulently opened firm had made transactions worth crores of rupees with eight firms registered with the GST Departments in Delhi and Uttarakhand. As per the investigation, these eight firms were in direct control of the present applicants and it was revealed that the said alleged fraudulent firm M/s Madhu Enterprises had shown goods and articles worth 2.27 Crores sold to three of the aforesaid eight firms of which the applicants herein are directors. It was also pointed out that Mr. Sujeet Singh Hussain, in whose name the aforesaid M/s Madhu Enterprises was registered, has given statements to the effect that he was working as a security guard in the office of present applicants, who got his signatures for opening the bank account and fraudulently got the firm registered in his name as well as other employees.

7. Learned APP for the State, on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, submitted that despite interim protection granted to the present applicants, they did not provide details of the payment against the purchase from the said fraudulent firm and did not even provide the contact number of the persons with whom they dealt with in the said company while purchasing the goods/articles worth approximately Rs. 2.27 Crores. It was further stated that during the course of the investigation, several bank accounts have been identified which were opened in a particular bank branch in the name of suspect entities/firms with whom the present applicants have direct business relations. It was further pointed out that another case bearing FIR NO. 647/2020, under Sections 467/468/471/120B of the IPC and Section 132 of the GST Act had been registered at P.S. Sonipat, Haryana, against the present applicants.

8. Learned APP for the State relied upon the portion of the additional status report filed by the Investigating Officer, which reads as under:

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the contents of the status report filed by the Investigating Officer are mala fide. It is stated that in the objections filed to the aforesaid status reports, it has been stated that the requisite documents have been provided. However, it is pertinent to note that in the application for bail as well as in the objections filed to the status report, the stand of the applicants are contradictory with regard to the dealings with M/s Madhu Enterprises. They have also further denied any involvement with Sanjay Kumar, whose statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.

11. It is pertinent to note that as per investigation, the mobile number with which the said M/s Madhu Enterprises was registered with the GST Department belonged to the aforesaid Sanjay Kumar, who is stated to be a security guard of the applicants. The investigation from the GST Department has also revealed that the aforesaid M/s Madhu Enterprises made business transactions worth crores of rupees with three entities of which the present applicants were director and despite that said fact, the applicants have been evading from giving details of the said transaction.

12. The ratio of the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has no application to the facts of the present case as the answers being given during investigation of the case, are on the face of it, totally evasive.

13. The change in the stance of the present applicants is apparent from the following chart: Grounds taken in Shashi Kant Gupta’s Bail Application NO. 3366/2022 filed on 10.11.2022 Grounds taken in Akshy Gupta’s Bail Application No. 926/2023 filed on 20.03.2023 Ground B - “...that there were no direct or indirect allegations against the applicant in the instant FIR nor Ground B - “...that there were no direct or indirect allegations against the applicant in the instance FIR nor there was any business transactions of the applicant with M/s. Madhu Enterprises...” there was any fake business transactions of the applicant with M/s Madhu Enterprises. Therefore, the Impugned Order is contrary to the facts of the case...” Ground D - “...that the prosecution in its reply to the bail application miserably failed and neglected to link the applicant with M/s. Madhu Enterprises in any manner whatsoever...” Ground D - “...the prosecution in its reply connected the firms of the applicant with the business link of M/ s. Madhu Enterprises, but could not appreciate that the applicant firms got suspicious about the business manner of the aforesaid firm and therefore, immediately stopped dealings with the said firm. Thereafter, the firms of the applicant never dealt with the aforesaid M/s. Madhu Enterprises except sometimes in July or August, 2021...” Subsequently, in the objections dated 10.03.2023, filed to the status report before this Court, the stand of the applicant Shashi Kant Gupta is “It is humbly submitted that the applicant and/or his firms ever dealt in any manner whatsoever with M/s Madhu Enterprises, the same is matter of records. The said records must be available with the GST Department, Jamshedpur who conducted the raid at both the office premises of the firms maintained by the applicant and his son”. The aforesaid stands taken by the applicants are contradictory and evasive. Although the stand of the applicants is that the documents are with the GST Department, Jamshedpur, it is difficult to believe that the applicants are not able to give the details of contact persons of the aforesaid M/s Madhu Enterprises with whom they have entered into transactions worth crores.

14. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in State Rep. by the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, while dealing with a plea for anticipatory bail, observed and held as under: “6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.”

15. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary to unearth entire chain of transactions linked with M/s Madhu Enterprise at the behest of the present applicants and the entities in their control.

16. The present applications are accordingly dismissed at this stage and disposed of accordingly.

17. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

18. The interim protection granted to Shashi Kant Gupta (applicant in BAIL APPLN. 3366/2022) vide order dated 14.11.2022 and Akshy Gupta (applicant in BAIL APPLN. 926/2023) vide order dated 21.03.2023, is withdrawn.

19. Needless to state, nothing stated hereinabove is an opinion on the merits of the case and is only for the purpose of the present applications.

20. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.

AMIT SHARMA JUDGE OCTOBER 20, 2023