Mumbai, Maharashtra – March 1, 2024 – Anil Babulal Chokhara, accused in a significant economic fraud case involving GST evasion and forgery, has been denied bail by the Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai. The case, C.R. No. 70 of 2023, registered with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), alleges that Chokhara and his accomplices defrauded the government of over Rs. 23.99 crore through forged documents and fabricated bank accounts.
Background of the Case:
The case stems from a complaint filed by Navin Kumar Jain, who was lured with the false promise of a bank job by an individual named Vaibhav. Jain provided his personal documents, including Aadhar and PAN cards, and was subsequently informed that a bank account had been opened in his name. Later, Jain discovered that he had been fraudulently made a director of Magic Royal Bullion Pvt. Ltd. and that substantial financial transactions had been conducted using his forged signatures and fabricated accounts, leading to a massive GST evasion.
Arguments Presented:
Applicant Anil Chokhara, through his lawyer Advocate Sujit Sahoo, argued that he was falsely implicated and that his name was not mentioned in the initial FIR. He also argued that the case primarily involved GST evasion, which falls under the purview of the Maharashtra GST Act, and that the EOW lacked the authority to investigate it. The defense further claimed that the main accused was still at large, and that Chokhara’s arrest violated procedural norms, including non-compliance with Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Seema Deshpande, representing the state, countered that Chokhara was deeply involved in the conspiracy and had actively participated in the fraudulent transactions. The prosecution presented evidence indicating that Chokhara had used a fake bank account to conduct gold bar transactions and had communicated with others regarding these transactions. They argued that Chokhara and his accomplices had targeted vulnerable individuals and had forged documents to facilitate their fraudulent activities. Furthermore, the SPP highlighted Chokhara’s involvement in other significant financial scams, including cases investigated by the EOW and the CBI, involving hundreds of crores of rupees.
Court’s Decision and Rationale:
Judge Aditee Uday Kadam, after considering the arguments and reviewing the evidence, rejected Chokhara’s bail application. The court emphasized the seriousness of the economic offenses and the complex conspiracy involved. The judge stated that while Chokhara’s name was not in the initial FIR, the modus operandi of the crime suggested his involvement in the background.
The court noted that the offense went beyond simple GST evasion, involving forgery, fabrication of documents, and fraudulent transactions, which fell under the purview of the Indian Penal Code. The judge also dismissed the argument regarding non-compliance with Section 41A of the CrPC, stating that the offenses were punishable with life imprisonment, and therefore, the procedural requirements for offenses punishable up to seven years were not mandatory.
The court cited precedents from the Supreme Court, emphasizing that economic offenses are a class apart and require a different approach regarding bail. The judge highlighted the deep-rooted conspiracies and the significant loss of public funds, which posed a serious threat to the country’s financial health. The court concluded that releasing Chokhara on bail would likely hinder the ongoing investigation and allow him to tamper with evidence or abscond.
Key Points of the Order:
- Economic Offenses: The court emphasized the severity of economic offenses and the need for a stringent approach.
- Conspiracy: The court recognized the complex conspiracy involved, with Chokhara playing a significant role.
- Forgery and Fraud: The court highlighted the forgery and fraudulent transactions that went beyond simple GST evasion.
- Previous Offenses: Chokhara’s involvement in other major financial scams was considered.
- Investigation: The court noted that releasing Chokhara would likely hinder the ongoing investigation and allow him to tamper with evidence.
This decision underscores the court’s commitment to addressing economic offenses and ensuring that those involved in such crimes are held accountable.