G.ELANGO Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody 22/4/2022 for the offence punishable under Ss. 406, 420 and 506(1) of IPC in crime No.4 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police, in which one, Maheswari/A1 introduced A2/petitioner herein, who is the loan agent and A3, who is the wife of A2 and A4 to the defacto complainant to obtain loan. Thereafter, on 26/2/2017, A2 came to the defacto complainant's house along with camera, wherein he took photograph of the defacto complainant and collected the xerox copy of the aadhar card, bank passbook, bank card. While so, the accused persons demanded Rs.15,000.00 for acquiring loan amount of Rs.10,00,000.00. Further, the petitioner along with other accused colluded together and by using the aadhar card and other documents of the defacto complainant forgedly opened a company in the name of "Sukumar Traders" situated at Prakash Nagar, Chennai. Based on the said documents, they had also applied for GST Registration and obtained a GST No.33BIFPV6957DIZY. Further, the petitioner/A2 and other accused involved in trading of Tubes and Pipes, Files Rasps, Pliers (including cutting pliers), Pincers, Tweezers, Metal cutting Shears, Pipe cutters, bolt croppers, perforating punches and similar hand tools and for the same, the petitioner/A2 filed GST returns regularly from the year 2019 to 2021. Further, as per the proceedings of the sales tax, the State Tax Officer, Group-III, Inspection Unit, Intelligence-I sent the order to the defacto complainant to pay penalty of Rs.80,09,655.00 to the concerned authorities. Hence, the case.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the allegations in the complaint are baseless and false. The averments in the complaint stating that her xerox copies of ID proofs given to this petitioner dtd. 26/11/2017 was used by the petitioner alone with her knowledge to create a bogus company in her name, which was effectively registered on 16/3/2018 was imaginary and false. The logic of possibility of GST obtained on online in the stated manner was not possible especially without the knowledge of the complainant and without the original ID proofs. Further, the bank account for the said bogus company cannot be opened without the complainant presence and without the photo, signature/digital signatures and without verification of original ID proofs. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.