High Court
Case Details
1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13716 Court No. - 52 1. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2723 of 2025 Applicant :- Kunal Mehta Alias Goldee Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinay Bhattacharya,Sunil Kumar Tripathi,Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 2. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2836 of 2025 Applicant :- Kunal Mehta @ Goldee Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinay Bhattacharya,Sunil Kumar Tripathi,Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The applicant has preferred aforementioned two bail applications for grant of bail in Case Crime No. 203 of 2023 and 255 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-20, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not named in the first information report. His name surfaced in confessional statement of co-accused Arvind Kumar Yadav which cannot be taken as a piece of evidence, and charge sheet has been submitted on 20.05.2024. Nothing has been recovered from the applicant and he is in no way connected with registration of fake GST firms, as mentioned in the FIR. Emphasizing upon the period of detention i.e. from 04.03.2024 he submits that in view of the law laid down in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, Criminal Appeal No. 2178 of 2021, wherein chargesheet has already been submitted on 20.05.2024, the applicant cannot be detained in jail for indefinite period. He next submits that the applicant is not connected with 2 the registration for fake GST firms which have been mentioned in the FIR as well as statement of other co-accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for other accused persons in bunch of bail applications decided with Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53010 of 2023, Rajiv Jindal v. State of U.P.. 5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that documents with regard to fake GST Firm No. 33CJWPC1399H1ZV, legal name - Nepal Chinda - Trade Name Ara Impex Address of Principal Place of Business - Shop No. 7 Kamraj Street Chromepet Chennai Chengle Pattu, Tamil Nadu - 600044, have been recovered from the applicant. From the aforesaid it is clear that the applicant is also involved in getting benefit of GST after registration of fake firm. 6. With respect to economic offences, there are several decisions of the Supreme Court, wherein the Apex Court has held that the statement of co-accused as well as confessional statements are required to be considered while considering bail application of an accused. Learned counsel for the State further emphasized that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, entire material as come in the case diary alongwith other material has to be looked into while considering bail application, thus, it is imperative to take into account all material whether it may or may not have evidential value and the Court should deal with it strictly while hearing economic offence. 7. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the relevancy of information received from a person accused of any offence while in the custody of the police officer. The Section provides an exception to the general rule that confessions made to the police officers are inadmissible in evidence. From the aforesaid, the scope of Section 27 of the Act, 1872 is that it applies to any information given by the person 3 accused of an offence, which leads to the discovery of a fact. The Section states that "so much information" given by the accused that distinctly relates to the fact discovered may be proved. The exception to rule of admissibility is that normally confessions made to a police officer or while in police custody are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, however, Section 27 allows for an exception where information received from the accused leads to discovery of a fact. The Section makes only that part of the statement relevant, which directly leads to the discovery of facts. It does not make the entire statement of the accused inadmissible. 8. The condition for applicability of the aforesaid Section is that the person giving the information must be an accused in police custody. The information provided must lead directly to the discovery of the material fact and only that portion of information which directly leads to the discovery is admissible. For example, if an accused, while in custody, reveals the location of a weapon used in the crime and upon searching that location, the weapon is indeed found, the part of statement where accused described the location of weapon is admissible in courts as evidence. 9. The rationale behind Section 27 of the Act, 1872 is to strike a balance between protection of the accused from coercive confession and the necessity of law enforcement to discover fact related to a crime. The courts have interpreted Section 27 in various judgements, often emphasizing that it should be applied only to the extent necessity to prove discovery of a fact. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also laid down guidelines to ensure that the information obtained is not the result of any compulsion or coercion. 10. In the case of Pulukuri Kotayya and others v. King Emperor1, which is a landmark judgement, the Apex Court that has explained the 1 P.C. App. No. 37 of 1946, 19th Dec. 1946 (Indian Appeal Vol. LXXIV Page 65) 4 scope of Section 27 of the Act. In the said case it has been held that the phrase "distinctly related to the fact thereby discovered" is crucial, meaning only that part of statement that led directly to the discovery is admissible, and not the entire statement. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya2, the Apex Court has reiterated the aforesaid. Thus, Section 27 is a significant provision under the Indian Evidence Act providing an exception to the inadmissibility of custodial confessions. It allows admissibility of the specific information that leads directly to the discovery of a fact, balancing the needs of criminal investigation with the rights of the accused. 11. In the present case, after registration of the FIR when forgery had been done by using the Aadhaar Card and PAN Card of the informant, fake GST firms were registered, Investigating Officer proceeded on the information as provided by a secret informer and arrested two accused who disclosed about the office where work of the firm was being done. On the aforesaid information of the arrested accused persons, the Investigating Officer reached the office premises, wherein he found other persons working for the firm of the arrested accused persons. Laptops, mobiles, SIM Cards, fake invoices were recovered, thus, discovering such fact which connected them with the main accused who had got registered the fake firms and the consequential forgery or theft of GST was found. Thus, that part of the discovery of fact is admissible as per Section 27 of the Act. Therefore, argument as placed by learned counsel for the applicant regarding the fact that confessional statements can be taken as a piece of evidence, has no legs to stand. 12. The principal of "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" is a fundamental concept in criminal law, where the criminal justice system recognizes the importance of personal liberty and the presumption of 2 1960 SCC OnLine SC 8 : AIR 1960 SC 1125 5 innocence until proven guilty. This principal emphasizes that an accused should ordinarily be granted bail unless there are compelling reasons to detain him in custody. But there are exceptions to the aforesaid principal. While, the general rule favours granting bail, there are several exceptions where courts may deny bail due to specific circumstances. These exceptions are based on factors that indicate a potential risk to society, the judicial process, or the investigation. Some points should be kept in mind while granting bail are; the nature and gravity of the offence, likelihood of flight risk, risk of tampering with the evidence of witnesses, repeated offenders or habitual criminals, danger to society or the victim, possibility of committing another offence while on bail, interference with justice, specific statutory provisions like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), lastly economic offence and white collar crimes. 13. The present case relates to economic offences, such as large scale fraud, money laundering and corruption, are often viewed seriously because they affect the economic fabric of the society. In the present case, money trail of crores, which affects the society at large scale, is involved which started from registration of fake firms by using Aadhaar and PAN Cards of the informant who had not applied for such registration. 14. While deciding the matter of other accused persons on same issue, in a bunch of bail applications, this Court has passed a detailed order on 31.08.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53010 of 2023, Rajiv Jindal v. State of U.P., whereby bail applications have been rejected. 15. Learned A.G.A. submits that case of the applicant is squarely covered with the applicants in Rajiv Jindal (supra). 6 16. As regards submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant regarding period of detention and judgement as relied upon, it has been mentioned that the same is one of the factors which can be considered while deciding bail, therefore, his case is distinguished and the judgement in Sanjay Chandra (supra) as relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, is not applicable in the present case. 17. Having gone through the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation of offence, role of the applicant and in view of the reasons recorded in the order dated 31.08.2024 passed in Rajiv Jindal (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is not entitled for bail. 18. The bail applications are rejected. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 DS Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad