Forgery-linked fake firms and tax credit diversion justified refusal of anticipatory bail on prima facie criminal allegations.

Anticipatory bail was declined where the investigation material prima facie showed creation of fake firms using forged documents, procurement of VAT registration on false papers, and diversion of transactions to claim tax credit. The Court relied on statements of the persons in whose names the firms were shown and the co-accused to find prima facie involvement in criminal breach of trust, cheating, misappropriation and forgery under the Indian Penal Code, together with offences under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The contention that only VAT-related contraventions were made out was rejected, and discretion was not exercised in favour of the applicant.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted where the investigation material prima facie indicated creation of fake firms, use of forged documents, procurement of VAT registration on false documents, and diversion of transactions to claim tax credit.

Analysis: The allegations were not confined to false returns or incorrect tax documents. The material relied upon by the investigating agency, including statements of persons in whose names the firms were shown and the statement of the co-accused, indicated that fake firms were created by using forged documents, registrations were obtained in their names, and business transactions were carried out through those firms to secure tax credit benefits. The Court found that this material prima facie involved offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating, misappropriation and forgery under the Indian Penal Code, along with offences under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. On that basis, the contention that only the VAT provisions were attracted was rejected.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was refused, as the applicant was prima facie implicated in serious offences and the Court declined to exercise discretion in his favour.

---