2020 (3) TMI 1314 - DSC - GST

Seeking grant of Bail - Territorial Jurisdiction - HELD THAT -This court at this stage without referring to the contents of the application and reply is of view that it has came out on record that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try this case, being admitted between both the parties as all the firms prosecuted in this ease have not sought any ITC within revenue district Gurugram. All the firms are registered in Delhi the court of Delhi or any other court are competent to try this case. Bur certainly not the courts of Gurugram are competent to try this case. Both the patties have also intimated this court that they also wish to pursue their effective remedy before Hon ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for transfer of this case. Keeping in view the that the accused is in jail since 07.10.2019, this court does not find it appropriate to keep the accused in jail any longer. Secondly accused Gulshan Dhingra is an old age person of more than 55 years of age and having medical history of Diabetes and Blood Pressure. Moreover there is a outbreak of Corona (Covid 19) and old persons are more prone of this virus, hence, bail application of accused Gulshan Dhingra stands allowed and accused is admitted to bail subject furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of ₹ 2 Lakhs with one surety in the like amount. Endorsement of compliance be made on order sheet by the concerned Ahlmad within 7 days. Now, to come up on 27.03.2020, the date already fixed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the court
2. Bail application for the accused

Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court:
The judgment revolves around the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the court in a case involving the prosecution of firms. The counsel for the complainant acknowledged that no Input Tax Credit (ITC) was claimed by the firms within the revenue district of Gurugram, indicating a lack of territorial jurisdiction for the court. Despite this, the complainant's counsel argued against discharging the accused based on a precedent set by the Delhi High Court in a similar case. The defense counsel, on the other hand, moved for bail for the accused, emphasizing the lack of territorial jurisdiction and the extended period the accused had spent in jail. Both parties expressed their intention to seek remedies from the High Court and Supreme Court for the transfer of the case, acknowledging that courts in Delhi, not Gurugram, were competent to try the case.

2. Bail Application for the Accused:
The judgment also addressed the bail application for the accused, Gulshan Dhingra, who was described as an elderly individual with medical conditions such as Diabetes and Blood Pressure. Considering the accused's age, health conditions, and the risk posed by the COVID-19 outbreak, the court granted bail to Gulshan Dhingra. The bail was subject to furnishing bail bonds and a surety, with specific conditions regarding property documents and compliance with court orders. The court ordered the immediate release of the accused and set a future date for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment primarily dealt with the issue of territorial jurisdiction, with a focus on the lack of jurisdiction for the court in Gurugram due to the absence of ITC claims within the district. Additionally, the court granted bail to the accused considering his age, health conditions, and the ongoing pandemic, while acknowledging the parties' intent to seek remedies for the transfer of the case to the appropriate jurisdiction.