Mumbai, Maharashtra – A Special Judge for Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) cases in Greater Mumbai has rejected the bail application of Amit Giridhar Lalge, a 44-year-old Sales Tax Officer, who is accused in a massive ₹175 crore Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud. The order, pronounced on August 14, 2024, by H.H.J. Abhijeet A. Nandgaonkar, dismissed Lalge’s plea, which was primarily based on a “law point” concerning his arrest and detention.

Lalge had filed his second bail application (Bail Application No. 607 of 2024) after his initial application (Exh.4 in ACB Remand Application No. 771/2024) was rejected on July 24, 2024, by a different court. He sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Allegations: Connivance in ₹175 Crore GST Fraud

Amit Giridhar Lalge was arrested in Crime No. 07/2024, registered with the ACB, Mumbai, on February 28, 2024. The charges against him are severe, including Sections 7, 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The prosecution, represented by APP Mr. D.M. Lade and IO Mrs. Manizha Zende (ACP, ACB Department, Mumbai), strongly opposed the bail. They contended that Lalge, a public servant, conspired with other accused individuals to defraud the government of over ₹175 crores. The investigation revealed that Lalge, attached to the GST department, allegedly returned ₹175,93,12,622/- to 16 bogus companies through various accounts without verifying the authenticity, genuineness, or correctness of their GST returns. This, the prosecution argued, caused a significant loss to the government treasury.

The “Law Point” and Supreme Court Citations

Lalge’s legal counsel, Adv. Mr. Mohan Tekavde, argued that the current bail application was filed “purely on law point,” asserting that the grounds against Lalge regarding his arrest and detention, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, were not adequately presented or considered during the rejection of his earlier bail plea.

Mr. Tekavde cited two recent Supreme Court judgments:

• Prabir Purkayastha Versus State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 463
• Arvind Kejriwal versus Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 576

He contended that Lalge was not informed of the specific grounds of his arrest, nor were reasons assigned for his arrest, a violation of fundamental rights as emphasized in these landmark judgments. The defense maintained that the applicant was a “peace-loving, law-abiding citizen” with a permanent residence in Bandra, Mumbai, and was willing to abide by any bail conditions.

Court’s Findings: Compliance with Legal Procedures

After hearing both sides and reviewing the documents, including the previous rejection order and the station diary, Judge Nandgaonkar acknowledged the widened scope of arrest and detention laws, especially concerning the fundamental right of an arrested person to be informed of the grounds of arrest in writing, as established in the Prabir Purkayastha and Arvind Kejriwal judgments.

However, the court found that the prosecution had, in fact, complied with these requirements. The Judge noted that the order dated July 24, 2024, had specifically addressed the legal points now raised by the applicant. Furthermore, the copy of the station diary submitted by the APP clearly demonstrated that Lalge was informed about the grounds and reasons for his arrest on June 25, 2024, at 12:40 PM, the date of his arrest.

The court observed that since the order rejecting the first bail application on July 24, 2024, remains unchallenged, and the prosecution demonstrated compliance with the Apex Court’s directives regarding arrest procedures, the “law point” raised in the successive bail application lacked “substance and merit.”

Consequently, without delving into the merits of the case itself, the court concluded that Lalge was not entitled to bail given the nature of the offense and the prosecution’s adherence to legal formalities.