2021 (3) TMI 1273 - HC - GST

Seeking Bail - condition to furnish a bank guarantee/ FDR for amount of ₹ 50 lakhs - a case was registered under Section 132(1) (b) (c) punishable under Section 132(1) (i) of CGST Act - It is contended that, the imposition of condition to furnish a bank guarantee/ FDR for amount of ₹ 50 lakhs only as it was contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court in Saravanan vs.State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2020 (10) TMI 1249 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Supreme Court set aside the condition imposed by the High Court directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of ₹ 8 lakhs while being released on default bail. HELD THAT - Economic offences constitute a class apart as compared to the 3 of 6 other offences. Coming to the instant case in the wake of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, it need not be over-emphasized that the parameters in such like cases would definitely warrant a different and stricter application of the conditions of bail. Hence, the imposition of ₹ 50 lakhs as a pre-requisite condition cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be onerous much less being against the mandate of the Supreme Court in Saravanan's case (supra). A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court has carefully examined the facts, circumstances and background of the case while imposing the impugned condition and the same is founded on sound judicial principles. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to bail order under Section 482 Cr.PC based on conditions imposed.

Analysis:
1. The accused filed a petition challenging the bail order under Section 482 Cr.PC, specifically objecting to the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee/FDR for ?50 lakhs, arguing it was unreasonable. The petitioner cited precedents such as Saravanan vs. State and emphasized that the condition was contrary to legal mandates.

2. The State counsel opposed the petitioner's plea, highlighting the accused's involvement in fraudulent transactions amounting to ?252 crores, resulting in a substantial loss to the government. The State argued that the condition of ?50 lakhs was justified given the gravity of the allegations and the ongoing investigation to uncover further fraudulent activities.

3. The court noted the distinct nature of economic offenses and the need for stricter bail conditions in such cases. Considering the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner, the court deemed the imposition of ?50 lakhs as bail condition not excessive, citing the Supreme Court's observations in Saravanan's case.

4. The court referred to Saravanan's case to emphasize that conditions imposed while granting default bail should not frustrate the purpose of bail provisions under Section 167(2) Cr.PC. The court distinguished the present case from Saravanan's case, where the Magistrate imposed a specific amount as security, unlike the discretionary condition imposed by the Magistrate in the current case.

5. After thorough consideration of arguments and reviewing the impugned order, the court found the conditions imposed by the trial court to be justified and based on sound judicial principles. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, concluding it lacked merit and did not warrant intervention under Section 482 Cr.PC.