Bishal Agarwal and Satyanarayan Sarawagi and Binod Kumar Agarwal V. Union of India through CBI

A.B.A./3388/2022

AI Insights

This case involves anticipatory bail applications filed by Bishal Agarwal, Satyanarayan Sarawagi, and Binod Kumar Agarwal, who were apprehending their arrest in connection with a corruption case investigated by the CBI. The case, registered under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleged that the petitioners conspired to fraudulently transfer PANs and manipulate tax assessments, causing substantial financial losses to the government. The CBI presented evidence suggesting that the petitioners played active roles in this conspiracy, including preparing and filing petitions under the Income Tax Act to obtain favorable tax assessments in exchange for illegal gratifications. The court, after considering the gravity of the allegations and the potential for evidence tampering, denied the anticipatory bail applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 801514 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PRASHANT PALLAV; SHIVANI JALUKA
• Assessee Lawyers: INDRAJIT SINHA; AMIT SINHA
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Conspiracy; Economic offence; Illegal gratification; PAN transfer
• Section: 11; 12; 264; 13(2); 7; 8; 13(1)(d); 120-B; 120-B

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3291 of 2022 Bishal Agarwal ..... … Petitioner with A.B.A. No. 3312 of 2022 Satyanarayan Sarawagi ..... … Petitioner with A.B.A. No. 3388 of 2022 Binod Kumar Agarwal ..... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through CBI ..... … Opposite Parties [in all cases] -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate. : Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate. For the CBI : Mr. Prashant Pallav, D.S.G.I. : Ms Shivani Jaluka, AC to DSGI ------ 11/ 14.12.2022 All these anticipatory bail applications arise out of RC AC1 2018 A 0004 corresponding to R.C. No. 04(A)/2018D, that’s why with the consent of the parties, all these petitions are heard together. 2. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned D.S.G.I. for the CBI. 3. In all these anticipatory bail applications, the aforementioned petitioners are apprehending their arrest, in connection with RC AC1 2018 A 0004 corresponding to R.C. No. 04(A)/2018D, registered for the offences punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pending in the court of learned AJC-XVIII- cum-Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi. 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these cases submits that the cases are arising out of certain cases decided by the PCIT, Ranchi and Hazaribag matters, on the ground that fraudulently the cases have been transferred from Kolkata to Ranchi, Hazaribag and Koderma and a huge loss has occurred to the Government. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation so far as petitioner Bishal Agarwal is concerned, he is a Chartered Accountant and consultant, that’s why he has prepared petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act and he has only represented the companies and he is not the Director of the Company and he has got no role to transfer the PAN from Kolkata to Ranchi, Hazaribag and Koderma. -2- 6. Learned counsel further submits that so far as petitioner Satyanarayan Sarawagi is concerned, it has been alleged that he is a controller of the company and a loss to the tune of Rs. 80,72,710/- has been occurred. He submits that the revisional orders, by which, the petitions have been allowed, were not challenged by the Income Tax Department and one of the ITO has been granted anticipatory bail in connection with this case. 7. Learned counsel further submits that so far as petitioner Binod Kumar Agarwal is concerned, it has been alleged that he is the controller of five companies and the revisional order has not been challenged by the Income Tax Department and one ITO has been granted anticipatory bail in connection with case. 8. On the aforementioned grounds, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that all the petitioner may kindly be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned D.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI in all these cases submits that so far as petitioner Bishal Agarwal is concerned, in para-16.19 of the chargesheet, it has come that he is a Chartered Accountant and played active role in the conspiracy. He has prepared petitions under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, in respect of most of the assessee companies and filed the same at Informant Tax Department, Ranchi. He further submits that he has also appeared as authorized representative on behalf of the companies before the Principal Commissioner, Income Tax, Ranchi and Hazaribag. He further submits that he has played a role of bridge between the accused public servants and accused controller of the companies for arranging illegal gratification for public servants. He further submits that he has also influenced public servants for favourable orders for the assessee companies in lieu of illegal gratification. 10. Learned D.S.G.I. further submits that so far as petitioner Satyanarayan Sarawagi is concerned, in para-16.7 of the chargesheet, it has been alleged that this petitioner is also the Director of five of the companies, out of Directors of 12 companies mentioned in this para, however, all are only the dummy Directors and having no actual authority. He further submits that these dummy Directors are merely the front face of the companies and only signing the letters / documents on the direction of the actual controller. He further submits that this petitioner is Controller and Director of one M/s Agastya Plastics Pvt. Ltd. -3- 11. Learned D.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI further submits that so far as petitioner Binod Kumar Agarwal is concerned, he is the Director as well as controller of M/s Amritrashi Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., M/s Allnew Constructions Pvt. Ltd., M/s Gangotri Complex Consultant Pvt. Ltd, M/s Amulay Computer Agencies Pvt. Ltd and M/s Amritlaxmi Realtors Pvt. Ltd. He submits that the controller / promoters of the beneficiary companies directly / indirectly contacted Sri Tapas Kumar Dutta, the then PCIT, Ranchi / Hazaribag and conspired to get the PAN transferred to Ranchi / Hazaribag so that, revision proceedings under Section 264 may be initiated by Sri Tapas Kumar Dutta in furtherance of the said conspiracy. 12. By way of referring Para-16.12 of the chargesheet, he submits that it has come that the CIT appeals were pending, in spite of that revision petitions have been filed to obtain the favourable orders. On the aforementioned grounds, learned DSGI, appearing for the CBI subits that these petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail. 13. In view of the above, the court has gone through the materials available on record as well as considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and finds that it has been alleged that the petitioner Bishal Agarwal has prepared Section 264 petitions and represented the companies before the PCIT. The petitioner Satyanarayan Sarawagi is the controller of the company, as disclosed in the submission of learned D.S.G.I. appearing for the CBI and the loss to the tune of Rs. 80,72,710/- has occurred to the Government. The petitioner Binod Kumar Agarwal was the director of five companies, as has been disclosed in the submission of learned D.S.G.I., appearing for the CBI and all the petitioners are in conspiracy of transferring the PAN to the PCIT, Ranchi, Hazaribag and Koderma. It has also come that during the pendency of the CIT appeals at Kolkata, such revision petitions have been filed to pass favourbale orders in connivance with Sri Tapas Kumar Dutta, the then PCIT. 14. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the cases and considering that the economic offence is a serious offence against the society, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/- "