Crl.M.No.M-34510 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-34510 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 26, 2010 Surinder Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.K.S.Nalwa, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.61379 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-34510 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.133, dated 22.6.2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. Brief allegations are that M/s.Hitanshu Sales Corporation (TIN No.03792029489) Shop No.286, Sector 25-A, Vidhi Chand Colony, Mandi Gobindgarh, was found involved in fraudulent sales and purchases claiming bogus input tax credit. The said dealer had allegedly purchased material worth Rs.1,37,85,40,245/- during the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 claiming input tax credit of Rs.5,51,41,610/- in a fraudulent way. The said firm is dealing in resale of iron ingots, scrap iron ingots, scrap steel bars and rounds. Co-accused Vinay Kumar is the sole proprietor of the said firm. As per return filed by the said firm, heavy transactions have been Crl.M.No.M-34510 of 2010 (O&M) -2- shown, which were allegedly made by the firm with some other firms of Punjab. During enquiry it was revealed that one such firm, i.e., M/s.Staunch International was not having any dealings with the said firm and that M/s.Hitanshu Sales Corporation had fraudulently shown sale/purchase from it. During enquiry it was revealed that in fact the present petitioner-accused had opened a fictitious account in the name of Staunch International in Union Bank of India under his signatures. During investigation statement of one Rajinder Singh son of Sohan Singh was also recorded in which he stated that the present petitioner-accused had induced him to obtain TIN No.03882033950 from Excise Department, Patiala, and that petitioner-accused told him that he had opened a firm R.S.Enterprises in the name of Rajinder Singh in Rajpura and obtained a licence for some goods in the name of said firm. Later on Rajinder Singh came to know that petitioner-accused fabricated the bills in the name of said firm and issued the same in the name of M/s.Hitanshu Sales Corporation. Rajinder Singh has also given affidavit in this regard. Hence, sufficient materials have come during investigation against the petitioner-accused that he is involved in such a big fraud causing loss to the State exchequer. Petitioner-accused has been absconding and proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has also been initiated against him Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. In view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Surinder Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 26.11.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge