Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-02,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by: Ashish Aggarwal, DHJS
Bail Application No. 247/2024
State v Vikesh Kumar Bansal @ Neeraj
FIR No.22/2024
PS Anti-Corruption Branch
22.11.2024
This is an application for bail on behalf of applicant/accused Vikesh Kumar
Bansal @ Neeraj.
Present : Sh. Manoj Kumar Garg, Ld. PP for State.
Sh. Ravinder Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for the applicant/accused through
Video-conferencing.
IO Inspector Jarnail Singh is present.
Ld. Counsel for accused has advanced arguments by video-conference. Ld.
PP for the State assisted by Investigating Officer has advanced arguments.
Put up for orders on the application for bail at 04:00 pm today itself.
(Ashish Aggarwal)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
22.11.2024
1
-- 1 of 7 --
At 04:00 pm
Present : Sh. Manoj Kumar Garg, Ld. PP for State.
1. By this order, I shall decide the application for bail filed on behalf of
accused Vikesh Kumar Bansal @ Neeraj.
2. Arguments have been advanced by Ld. Counsel for applicant/accused and
Ld. PP for State.
3. It is stated in the application for bail that the applicant has no concern with
the alleged five firms; that the applicant is innocent; that the applicant has
not benefited from the refund which was sought and that the applicant had
not forged any document; that nothing incriminating has been recovered at
the instance of the applicant; that there is no evidence that any money has
been transferred to the account of applicant and that co-accused Babita
Sharma has been granted bail.
4. Ld. Public Prosecutor for State has opposed the application. It is argued by
Ld. Public Prosecutor for State that the applicant was instrumental in
creating five bogus firms; that illegal GST refunds was obtained by the said
firms; that the investigation revealed the applicant to be involved because
Aadhar authentication had been used; that the applicant created forged
2
-- 2 of 7 --
rent agreement too; that the proprietors of the concerned entities initially
joined investigation but disappeared after the arrest of the applicant; that
investigation is at a crucial stage; that co-accused persons are still at large;
that release of the applicant will hamper investigation.
5. Ld counsel for applicant has rejoined arguments and has argued that there
is nothing on record which could connect the applicant to the crime; that the
applicant is neither proprietor of the firms nor has any money received by
him.
6. Ld. Public Prosecutor has countered the submission by arguing that the
evidence against the applicant includes the disclosure statement of
accused Pramod Kumar; that specimen signatures of applicant will
establish whether the applicant had a role to play in the forgery of rent
deed; that the job of the applicant was to contact persons who were ready
to be on the front in the creation of bogus firms whereas Ankur Saluja was
the person who was behind the creation of the said firms with assistance
given by applicant Vikesh Kumar Bansal @ Neeraj.
7. I have heard arguments.
3
-- 3 of 7 --
8. Initially a complaint was received relating to refunds sanctioned by Smt.
Babita Sharma, GST Officer. FIR was registered. The complaint alleged that
when Smt. Babita Sharma was transferred from Ward 6 to Ward 22, 53
firms applied for migration to Ward 22. A majority of these firms were with
Smt. Babita Sharma only earlier, in Ward 6. Most of the requests were
immediately approved by Smt. Babita Sharma. A preliminary scrutiny
revealed that huge sums of money had been sanctioned as GST refund to
bogus firms during a short period of time. The applicant is stated to be one
of the persons who was involved in the creation of bogus firms. A
supplementary police report has revealed that money was also received in
the account of the applicant. On asking, during arguments, Ld. Counsel for
applicant could not explain the said receipt of funds. The accusation against
the applicant is well founded. There is ample material to show that the
applicant was part of the conspiracy whereby firms were created with a view
to make false claims and to obtain undue GST refunds in complicity with the
GST Officer. Forgery of valuable security has allegedly been done by the
applicant. The offence is punishable with imprisonment for life. The
applicant is alleged to have repeatedly committed similar offences in
respect of multiple firms. It is a serious economic offence and it has to be
viewed as a distinct class for the purpose of deciding bail applications.
4
-- 4 of 7 --
9. It is apt to quote the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the
case of Sunil Dahiya Vs. State, bail applications Nos. 1212/2016, 1221/16
and 1222/2016 dated 18.10.2016, as under:
“The nature and gravity of accusations against the accused, in my
view, is serious. The grant of regular bail in a case involving
cheating, criminal breach of trust by an agent, of such a large
magnitude of money, affecting a very large number of people
would also have an adverse impact not only in the progress of the
case, but also on the trust of the criminal justice system that
people arose. It would certainly not be safe for the society. In case
the applicant accused is granted regular bail, it is also likely that
he may tamper with the evidence/witnesses, or even threaten
them considering that the stake for the accused is high. It is also
very much likely that looking to the high stakes, the nature and
extent of his involvement, and his resources, he may flee from
justice.”
Reference may also be made to the case of Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy v
C.B.I 2013 (7) SCC 439.
10. Given the prospect of punishment and the evidence which is being
collected, there are chances that the accused person may, if released on
bail, abscond in order to avoid the trial. Also, since the applicant has
committed similar offences repeatedly, it is possible that the applicant may,
5
-- 5 of 7 --
if released, resort to similar offences in future. The witnesses who are likely
to depose against the applicant are the ones who are known to him. The
accused may, if released, try to influence the said witnesses or may attempt
to threaten the witnesses so that they do not depose against him.
11. The involvement of other offenders is being examined. The applicant, if
released on bail, can tip off his accomplices and help them escape. It is
clearly mentioned in the supplementary report filed by the Investigating
Officer that the co-offenders disappeared after learning of the arrest of the
applicant. That being the proximity between the applicant and his
accomplices, it is apparent that the release of the applicant will hamper the
investigation.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has stressed that interest of society must be
borne in mind while deciding whether to grant bail. In the case of Masroor
Vs. State of U.P. and Another 2009 (6) SCALE 358, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed thus :
“There is no denying the fact that the liberty of an
individual is precious and is to be zealously
protected by the Courts. Nonetheless, such a
protection cannot be absolute in every situation.
The valuable right of liberty of an individual and the
6
-- 6 of 7 --
interest of the society in general has to be balanced.
Liberty of a person accused of an offence would
depend upon the exigencies of the case. It is
possible that in a given situation, the collective
interest of the community may outweigh the right of
personal liberty of the individual concerned”.
13. I do not deem it fit to grant bail to the applicant. The application for bail is
hereby dismissed.
Nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an observation on merits.
Copy of the order be given to Ld. counsel for accused. Another copy shall
be sent to the IO.
(Ashish Aggarwal)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
22.11.2024
7
-- 7 of 7 --