1appln-2798-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 2798 of 2010 Deepak W. Joshi vs. The State of Maharashtra Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr K. N. Makasare i/by Mrs P. N. Correa, for the Applicant. Mr P.S. Hingorani, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 28TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this anticipatory bail application preferred by the applicant, a tax consultant, apprehending his arrest in C.R.No.7/2010 registered with Chakan Maval Police Station,Pune Rural. 2. Allegations against the applicant are that the co-accused, the proprietor of M/s Shripad Enterprises and the present applicant being the tax consultant of co-accused cheated and defrauded the service tax of the Central Government. The modus operandi adopted by the present applicant - that initially only an amount of Rs.7,000/- and odd has been paid as a service tax Department in the name of some fictitious company which was not at all in existence. After obtaining the receipt for the said payment, the alternations were made in the said 2appln-2798-10 receipt showing that it is for the payment of Rs.50 lacs and some odd and for M/s Shripad Enterprises. As such, there are the allegations of fabrication of documents and using the same for taking pecuniary advantage showing that amount of Rs.50 lacs and odd was paid. In fact, only the amount of Rs.7,000/- and odd was deposited, that also in the name of some fictitious company. 3. During the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the co-accused, proprietor of M/s Shripad Enterprises, has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court and as such the present applicant only being the tax consultant is required to be dealt with in the same manner, however, anticipatory bail application was rejected. Considering the allegations against the present applicant as to actively taking part in depositing of Rs.7,000/- and odd in the name of fictitious company and thereafter altering receipt so obtained to show that it is for the payment of Rs.50 lacs and odd and that also in the name of Shripad Enterprises, in fact the parity claimed by the applicant is misconceived. 4. During the arguments learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the entire dues towards service taxes have already been repaid, Rs. 20 lacs by the co- accused and 20 lacs by the present applicant and also remaining 10 lacs and odd by the applicant himself. In the opinion of this Court, it is not a question whether the entire tax liability is cleared or not, but through investigation in the matter is required to be done when it is alleged forgery and fabrication of documents and valuable securities done by the applicant none other than the tax consultant. Under such circumstances, it is not a fit case in which discretionary relief can be granted in favour of the applicant. In the result, the following order:- 3appln-2798-10 ORDER: (a) Anticipatory bail application is rejected. (b) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (A.R.JOSHI,J)