2018 (12) TMI 442

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ice, Jalandhar. [2]. Earlier prayer was declined by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2017 passed in CRM-M No.12008 of 2017. Thereafter CRM-M No.12385 of 2018 was filed and the same was also dismissed by this Court on 23.03.2018. Thereafter, petitioner filed SLP (Crl.) No.3023 of 2018 in the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same was got withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition before the High Court. [3]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to changed circumstances the present petition has been filed. He referred to the order dated 07.05.2018 passed in CRM-M No.2210 of 2018 titled 'Raman Kumar Garg vs. Enforcement Directorate, The Mirage, 556-B, Cool Road, Jalandhar', wherein regular bail was granted to Ram....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aman Kumar Garg was allowed anticipatory bail in the FIR case. [8]. As per prosecution case, petitioner and Raman Kumar Garg were involved in paper transactions and fake documentation in order to cheat State exchequer. Petitioner is the beneficiary of the act of fake companies. ECIR proceedings and the prosecution in FIR are two distinct mechanism. Fictitious export firm had claimed VAT refund of Rs. 1.56 crores from the Government. In the enquiry, it was confirmed that all the shipping bills and documents produced by the said firm were forged and fabricated. VAT refund of Rs. 1,56,76,190/- on the basis of forged and fabricated documents from the Excise and Taxation Department, Ludhiana was transferred through RTGS in different accounts ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner did not co-operate for so long. Raman Kumar Garg has been granted regular bail in CRM-M No.2210 of 2018. Grant of regular bail cannot be equated with the anticipatory bail as claimed by the petitioner. [11]. The case of Umesh Garg cannot be considered to be on parity with that of the petitioner, as the conduct of petitioner was earlier deprecated with reference to his conduct in not joining the investigation despite directions issued by the High Court for doing videography of the proceedings of the investigation. The petitioner was summoned on various occasions for making necessary arrangement for the videography, but he intentionally did not appear. The summons were issued to the petitioner on nine occasions, but despite service h....