2021 (11) TMI 1185 - HC - GST

Second bail application filed u/s 439 CrPC - Offence(s) under Sections 132(1) (b)/(c)/(f) r/w Section 132(1)(i) - HELD THAT - It is just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the reasons; firstly, the other co-accused persons have already been released on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court; secondly, the maximum sentence for the alleged offence is up-to 5 years only and the petitioner remained in custody for a period of nine months; lastly, out of nine witnesses only the chief examination of one witness has been completed before the learned trial Court as such conclusion of trial likely may take long time. Accordingly, this second bail application is allowed. Petitioner be admitted to regular bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court.

Summary

Issues: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Central Goods and Services Act, 2017.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 132(1)(b)/(c)/(f) read with Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, related to wrongful passing of Input Tax Credit (I.T.C) by creating fake firms, amounting to Rs. 6,36,32,492. The petitioner claimed false implication and highlighted delays in trial proceedings, with other co-accused already granted bail by the same Court.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner had been in custody for about nine months, and emphasized that tax evasion up to Rs. 5 crore is bailable under the Act. The counsel cited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of the bail application, emphasizing the delay in trial progress and the petitioner's prolonged detention without conclusion of trial proceedings.

3. The respondent's counsel opposed the bail application, asserting that the petitioner was the main accused in the case. However, the Court, after considering the material on record and the circumstances, decided to grant bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that other co-accused had already been granted bail, the maximum sentence for the alleged offence was up to 5 years, and only one witness's chief examination had been completed out of nine, indicating potential delays in trial completion.

4. The Court, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, allowed the second bail application, ordering the petitioner's release on bail subject to the trial court's satisfaction. The office was directed to send a copy of the order to the trial court for necessary compliance, considering the reasons for granting bail, including the delays in trial proceedings and the petitioner's extended custody period.