Case Details: Mohd. Farhan vs. State of Chhattisgarh - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 608 (Chhattisgarh)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
-
Palash Soni, Prashant Dansena & Vikalp Sharma, Advs. for the Applicant.
-
U.K.S. Chandel, Dy.A.G. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The applicant was a freelance accountant against whom proceedings were initiated following a search on allegations that he was involved in creating bogus firms and facilitating fake e-way bills. Certain documents and digital records were seized, and the Department issued summons during the search. The applicant sought anticipatory bail due to the possibility of arrest, but the request was turned down. It was contended that he was merely discharging his professional duties as a freelance accountant, that the allegations were based primarily on documentary and digital evidence already seized. The matter was placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the allegations against the applicant were based on documentary and digital evidence already in the custody of the investigating agency. It was held that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence under Section 132 of the CGST Act was five years. The offence did not fall within the category of heinous or violent crimes warranting pre-trial incarceration. The Court observed that the limited statutory severity of punishment, coupled with the nature of allegations and the fact that custodial interrogation was not indispensable. It was held that the investigation was likely to take time. Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 69 of the CGST Act.
The post HC Grants Anticipatory Bail to Accountant in Fake E-Way Bill Case appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
