ANIL AGARWAL V. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CBI

A.B.A./9992/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Anil Agarwal, the petitioner, who sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal conspiracy to manipulate tax liabilities through forged documents and illegal gratifications involving high-ranking officials of the Income Tax Department. The allegations include the transfer of the PAN of M/s. Bhuteshwar Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. using a fake address and the reduction of tax liability from Rs. 19,98,21,990 to Rs. 7,770. The Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's influence and the serious nature of the crimes, which involved substantial financial fraud and the involvement of a Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724209 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, P.C. Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ROHIT SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: NIRANJAN KUMAR
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Criminal conspiracy; Evidence tampering; Forged documents; Illegal gratification; Income Tax
• Section: 12; 13(2); 7; 13(1)(d); 120B

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 9992 of 2021 ------ Anil Agarwal … Petitioner Versus The Union of India through C.B.I. … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the C.B.I. : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate ------ Order No.02 Dated- 05.01.2022 Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after resumption of the Court in physical mode. In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with R.C. 05(A)/2018-D registered under sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7/12/13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the controller of M/s. Bhuteshwar Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons including the higher officers of the Income Tax Department namely co-accused- Tapas Kumar Dutta who was the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax of Jharkhand got the PAN of the said M/s. Bhuteshwar Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. transferred by using fake address on the basis of forged documents of 11, Mezzanine Roshpa Tower, Ranchi from Kolkata and with the help of co-accused- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, the said co-accused-Principal Commissioner of Income Tax got the tax liability of M/s. Bhuteshwar Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. which was assessed 19,98,21,990/- to only Rs7,770/- and and with the help of co-accused- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, the said co-accused-Principal Commissioner of Income Tax got the tax liability of M/s. Bhuteshwar Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. which was assessed 19,98,21,990/- to only Rs7,770/- and thus by reassessment got the said tax liability reduced it by Rs. 19,98,14,220/-after getting the appeal against assessment transport to Jharkhand Circle on the basis of forged documents. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner was not holding any designated post in M/s. Bhuteshwar Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. nor he signed any document in connection with the allegation. It is then submitted that the income tax assessed by the A.O. Kolkata was on the higher side and the main kingpin of the case are Bishwanath Agarwal and Santosh Shah @ Santosh Chaudhary. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the petitioner is a very influential person as is evident from the criminal acts committed by him by getting involved a person no less than of the rank of a Principal Commissioner of Income Tax by giving huge amount of illegal gratification and also got him involved in the criminal conspiracy hence there is every chance of the petitioner tampering with the evidence if enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that keeping in view the sentence that will be imposed upon the petitioner after the trial on being convicted, there is every likelihood of the petitioner absconding if given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and in criminal conspiracy with no less a person of the rank of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax defrauding the State Exchequer of Rs. 19,98,14,220/- as well as the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan- "