2022 (5) TMI 1552 - HC - GST

Rejection of third bail application - offence under Section 132(1)(i) of Central Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 read with 132(5) of CGST Act - petitioner has remained in custody for a period of about one year four months and matter is still at the stage of pre charge evidence - HELD THAT - This Court vide order dated 28.10.2021 had rejected the third bail application of the present petitioner on merits and except for the period of custody, there is no change in circumstance necessitating entertaining the present fourth bail application. Considering the above, no ground is made out for entertaining the present fourth bail application - Bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Fourth bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
- Offence under Section 132(1)(i) of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 read with 132(5) of CGST Act.
- Petitioner's custody period.
- Opposition by the Union of India based on previous bail application rejection.
- Lack of change in circumstances for the fourth bail application.
- Direction to expedite case disposal by the trial court.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a fourth bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in a case involving an offence under Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 read with 132(5) of the CGST Act. The petitioner, represented by counsel, argued that despite a custody period of one year and four months, the case is still in the pre-charge evidence stage, and the maximum sentence under the Act is five years.

The Union of India, through its counsel, opposed the fourth bail application, citing the rejection of the petitioner's third bail application by the Court on a previous date. The Court noted that the third bail application had been dismissed on its merits, and apart from the custody duration, there had been no change in circumstances warranting the consideration of the fourth bail application.

In light of the above, the Court found no grounds to entertain the fourth bail application and subsequently dismissed it. However, recognizing the need for expeditious proceedings, the trial court was directed to hasten the disposal of the case. This directive aims to ensure timely justice delivery and efficient case management in the matter at hand.