TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the contents of the FIR is read, it only discloses that there is monetary dispute between the parties, which is sought to be converted into a criminal prosecution of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the sole ground on which the previous pre-arrest bail petition of the petitioner, being A.B. No. 920/2022 was dismissed by order dated 03.08.2022, solely on accepting the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the informant that the petitioner was using GSTIN 18BGFPA0282E1ZW, which belonged to M/s. Zentic Pharmaceuticals. It is submitted that in this present pre-arrest bail petition, the petitioner has produced a copy of Cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disinclined to allow the petitioner to appear after the expiry of time. Hence, it was prayed that time for appearance of the petitioner before the I.O. be suitably extended. 6. The learned senior counsel for the informant has submitted that the record of A.B. No. 920/2022 would reveal that the reference to GSTIN was made in a different context and it was submitted that the M/s. NRI Group of Companies and M/s. Zentic Pharmaceuticals was the proprietorship firm of one Anjuman Kumar Sharma, who for expansion of his business in Assam, had provided the petitioner a sum of Rs.77,14,547/-, Rs.9,30,265/- and Rs.12,70,000/- to start a brick klin industry on the land of the petitioner. However, the petitioner had committed fraud by projecting h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posed the prayer for pre-arrest bail. 9. It would be appropriate to reproduce para-5 and 6 of the order dated 03.08.2022 in AB 920/2022, which is as follows:- "Insofar as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel for the informant has referred to a copy of pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner no. 1 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup at Amingaon, which was registered as AB 257/2022 (Annexure-6 of the objection filed by the informant) to project that in the said application, the petitioner no.1 had admitted that Zentic Pharmaceuticals was co-owned by one Mr. Anjuman Kumar Sharma. However, in the present pre-arrest bail application he has projected himself to be the owner of a brick k....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as fraudulently selling goods by impersonating as M/s. Zentic Pharmaceuticals. 12. The documents annexed to this bail application and additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, as well as from the statement made by the learned senior counsel for the informant, it is not disputed by the informant that GSTIN 18BGFPA0282E1ZW is of the petitioner. 13. The petitioner claims that he is the proprietor of M/s. NRI Group of Industries. However, no document is produced by the petitioner to show the same. Nonetheless, the learned senior counsel for the informant has been able to demonstrate that the petitioner has been changing his stand. The said changing stand of the petitioner is more elaborately referred in para 7 above. While considering....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., if the allegations regarding alleged evasion of GST by the petitioner is excluded for the time being from consideration, then from the contents of the FIR, it strongly appears that there is a financial dispute between the informant and the petitioner. 15. It may be stated that in the 7 (seven) long page FIR dated 10.03.2022, there is no allegation that the petitioner is selling goods by ecommerce by impersonating as M/s. Zentic Pharmaceuticals, as projected in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the informant. Therefore, the said point is immaterial for consideration in this bail application. 16. However, in the affidavit-in-opposition, the informant has referred to mobile call screenshots to project that on 03.11.2022, the informa....