Mumbai, July 8, 2022 – The Additional Sessions Judge S.M. Menjoge rejected the bail application of Sagar Dilip More, accused in a GST fraud case involving the misappropriation of over Rs. 74 lakhs. The court cited prima facie evidence of cheating and misappropriation as reasons for denying bail.

More was arrested in connection with Crime No. 327/2020, registered at Tilak Nagar Police Station, under Sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record)¹ read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 132(1) (E, F, L (i) (ii) (iA)) of the GST Act.

According to the prosecution, Assistant Commissioner of State Balaji Narhare filed a report stating that More had obtained a GST registration certificate using a forged and fabricated electric bill. The address provided for M/s. Predict Enterprises (GSTIN 27AJVPM2380F1ZQ) was found to be fake. More allegedly obtained a GST refund of Rs. 74,76,480 and withdrew the amount from his bank account using cheques.

More, through his advocate Ashokkumbar Dubey, sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), arguing that he was innocent and unaware of the fraud. He claimed that his documents were misused by a service provider when he was seeking employment. He also argued that the investigation was complete and his further detention was unnecessary. He relied on several Supreme Court judgments related to bail.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ramesh Siroya, opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offense and the substantial amount of money misappropriated.

Judge Menjoge, after reviewing the case diary and hearing both sides, noted the following:

• More had opened an account in Bank of Maharashtra, submitting photographs and documents.
• Anil Tongare, Branch Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, stated that the account was opened after verifying More’s name and photograph and that rent agreements, PAN cards, Aadhaar cards, and Udyog Aadhaar Patras were submitted.
• Smt. Ujjwal Gharat, then Branch Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, stated that More had personally come to the bank to open the account for M/s. Predict Enterprises and had signed the bank opening form in her presence. She had verified copies of Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, Bombay Shop Act licenses, etc., from the originals.
• Rs. 74,76,480 was withdrawn from the account of Predict Enterprises through various cheques, representing a GST refund.

“From the perusal of the chargesheet, it is revealed that, present applicant had opened the account in Bank of Maharashtra. Photographs and other documents were given while opening the account. Anil Tongare, Branch Manager of Bank of Maharashtra in his statement stated that account is opened only after verifying name and photograph of said person. He also stated that rent agreement, PAN card, Adhar Card, Udyog Adhar Patra are taken along with said form. He further stated that from the account of Predict Enterprises Rs.74,76,480/- are withdrawn by various cheques. Said amount was of GST refund. Smt. Ujjwal Gharat, then Branch Manager of Bank of Maharashtra, in her statement stated that in the year, 2019 Sagar More had been to said branch to open the account in the name of his company M/s Predict Enterprises and had signed bank opening form in her presence. She had verified copies of Adhar Card, PAN card, Bombay Shop Act Licence etc. from the originals. She had further stated that that Sagar More had personally came to bank for opening the account.” Said Judge Menjoge.

The court concluded that a prima facie case of cheating was made out against More and that the offense was an economic one involving a substantial amount of government money.

“Thus, defence of applicant that signature on bank account form is not of him is required to be proved during evidence. Prima facie case of cheating is made out against him. It is economic offence and huge amount of Govt.is misappropriated.” Said Judge Menjoge.

Consequently, the court rejected More’s bail application. The order was dictated, transcribed, and signed on July 8, 2022, and uploaded on the same day, as certified by stenographer S.S. Sawant.

This ruling highlights the judiciary’s approach in considering the prima facie evidence and the nature of economic offenses when deciding bail applications. It also underscores the court’s concern for protecting government revenue and preventing financial fraud.