Anticipatory Bail Denied for Alleged Mastermind in Tax Fraud Case Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC

The HC dismissed the anticipatory bail petition in an FIR involving fraud charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC. Though not directly named in the FIR, evidence showed mobile numbers and bank accounts linked to the petitioner were used in tax evasion schemes. The court noted the petitioner had evaded arrest for three years, failed to cooperate with investigators despite previous interim bail, and was allegedly the mastermind behind fraudulent activities conducted under his nephew's name. Given the serious allegations of money laundering and tax fraud, bail was denied.

---

---

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail in FIR involving Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 390 dated 16.12.2019, involving serious sections of the IPC at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh. The petitioner argued that he was not directly named in the FIR but was implicated through mobile numbers linked to him. The petitioner had initially been granted interim anticipatory bail but failed to cooperate in the investigation, leading to the dismissal of his bail application.

The allegations in the FIR implicated the petitioner's nephew, who had allegedly raised fake bills/documents to evade taxes. The petitioner claimed not to be associated with the firm involved in the fraud. However, it was revealed that mobile numbers and bank accounts linked to the fraudulent activities belonged to the petitioner, indicating his involvement in running the business and committing tax evasion.

The respondent opposed the bail citing serious allegations of money laundering and the petitioner's failure to comply with investigation procedures. The respondent alleged that the petitioner was actually conducting business under his nephew's name, despite claiming to be a scrap dealer. The investigation revealed that the petitioner was the mastermind behind the fraudulent activities, evading arrest for about three years before seeking anticipatory bail in 2022.

After considering the arguments from both sides and the gravity of the allegations, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the seriousness of the accusations and the petitioner's prolonged evasion of arrest. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Court.

---