2023 (10) TMI 1338 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Denial of grant of bail - refund obtained without any actual movement of goods during the course of interstate sale - use of forged and false documents of sale - HELD THAT - The allegations against the petitioner are subject to trial. The trial s progress has been slow, and it is anticipated to take a considerable amount of time. Bail serves the purpose of allowing an accused to remain free until their guilt or innocence is determined. In contrast, the petitioner has been in detention since May 29, 2023, for more than 04 months. The petitioner s continued preventive custody is based on an unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. There is no probability of tampering with evidence as it has already been seized by the investigating agency - The petitioner is stated to be a 67-year-old senior citizen having family to look after. Being a family man and having a family to look after, a fixed abode, it is unlikely that he poses any flight risk and/or will flee from trial proceedings. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further preventive custody - the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, where his case is being tried, and in case he/she is not available, before the learned Duty Judge, as the case may be - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The denial of bail by the trial Court, seeking release as an undertrial in a case registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Allegations and Investigation:
The case involved a fraudulent refund claim by a firm, leading to the arrest of the petitioner after the arrest of a co-accused. The prosecution alleged the petitioner's involvement in the fraudulent activities.

2. Petitioner's Defense:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and had retired before the alleged incidents. It was contended that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence directly linking the petitioner to the fraudulent activities.

3. Delay in FIR and Health Concerns:
The defense highlighted a significant delay in lodging the FIR and raised concerns about the petitioner's health conditions, including hypertension and diabetes, emphasizing the need for medical attention.

4. Opposition by State Counsel:
The State counsel opposed the bail petition, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner's involvement in multiple cases, expressing concerns about the possibility of the petitioner fleeing trial proceedings.

5. Court's Decision:
After considering the arguments, the Court noted the slow progress of the trial and the petitioner's prolonged detention. It observed that the offense was nonviolent and that the petitioner, a senior citizen with family responsibilities, was unlikely to flee.

6. Grant of Bail:
The Court allowed the petition, ordering the petitioner's release on bail upon furnishing necessary bonds, emphasizing that the decision did not reflect on the case's merits and that any violation of bail conditions could lead to bail cancellation.

7. Conclusion:
The Court directed the petitioner's release, emphasizing that the observations made were specific to the bail hearing and should not influence the trial proceedings. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.