2018 (8) TMI 894 - HC - Central Excise

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - CENVAT Credit - bogus firms - dummy parties for fraudulent transactions - case of petitioner is that there was no move initiated to put the respondent under arrest and, therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Sessions court under Section 438 Cr. PC was bad in law. Held that - Such non-serious pursuit of the matter cannot take the petitioner anywhere. The impugned order was passed by the court of Sessions after taking into account the available material. The petition cannot continue to hang like a democle s sword over the head of the respondent indefinitely. The petitioner would have the liberty to oppose the grant of regular bail to the respondent in the event of a case being presented upon conclusion of the investigation for cognizance thereupon to be taken up by the competent court it leading to issuance of the process against the respondents. Petition dismissed.

Issues:
1. Legality and propriety of the anticipatory bail order under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.
2. Status of the investigation and evidence against the respondent.
3. Duration of pendency of the petition challenging the anticipatory bail order.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the legality and propriety of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner challenged the anticipatory bail order, arguing that since there was no move to arrest the respondent, the jurisdiction exercised by the Sessions court was improper. The court noted the conditions specified in the bail order, including the respondent's cooperation with the inquiry and surrender of his passport if arrested. The petitioner contended that the investigation was incomplete and failed to provide evidence of the respondent's involvement in the alleged crimes. The court emphasized that the impugned order was passed after considering the available material and dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner could oppose regular bail if a case is presented upon completion of the investigation.

2. The issue of the status of the investigation and evidence against the respondent was crucial in this case. The petitioner's counsel was unable to provide updated information on the investigation's progress or any incriminating evidence against the respondent. Despite the seriousness of the alleged crimes and the respondent's status as a suspect, the lack of concrete evidence of his complicity weakened the petitioner's argument. The court highlighted the importance of a thorough investigation and the need for substantial evidence to establish the respondent's involvement in the offenses under scrutiny. The petitioner's failure to demonstrate the respondent's culpability undermined the challenge to the anticipatory bail order.

3. Another significant aspect addressed in the judgment was the duration of the petition challenging the anticipatory bail order. The petition had been pending for almost two and a half years, causing uncertainty for the respondent. The court expressed concern over the prolonged pendency of the case, stating that the petitioner could not indefinitely hold the threat of legal action over the respondent without substantial grounds. Emphasizing the need for a timely resolution, the court dismissed the petition and associated application, providing clarity on the legal standing of the anticipatory bail order and the petitioner's future recourse in opposing regular bail if warranted.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the legality of the anticipatory bail order, the status of the investigation and evidence against the respondent, and the duration of the pending petition. The court's analysis underscores the importance of substantive evidence in legal proceedings, the necessity of a comprehensive investigation, and the need for timely resolution of legal challenges to prevent undue hardship on the parties involved.

← Previous Next →