9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1378 - HC - GSTGrant of Bail - offence punishable under Sections 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and 467, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code - It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that on the basis of false case, applicant is in confinement since 6.2.2019 - HELD THAT - This is a case where the applicant is facing heat of investigation under Section 132 of the Act. Section 132 of the Act prescribes punishment for certain offences and maximum sentence which can be awarded, is five years. Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C provides 60 days time to the investigating agency to submit charge sheet for the offences where investigation relates to any offence other than total imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years - Here the maximum sentence punishable is imprisonment for five years therefore, respondent had to file the charge sheet within 60 days. But admittedly, charge sheet has not been filed, therefore, right of default bail' accrued to the applicant after completion of 60 days. It was the duty of the investigating agency to submit charge sheet within the stipulated period, but same has not happened. This application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- - Application allowed.
Issues:
Grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for the applicant arrested in connection with Sections 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Sections 467, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Detailed Analysis: 1. Bail Application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C: The applicant filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C, seeking release from custody since 6.2.2019 in connection with a case registered at the Police Station Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax Department, Gwalior M.P. The applicant's first bail application was dismissed earlier. The applicant argued that the arrest was based on a false case, and there was no authorization for the arrest as required under Section 69 of the Act. 2. Non-filing of Charge Sheet within 60 Days: The applicant contended that the charge sheet had not been filed within 60 days of arrest, as mandated by Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C for offences punishable under Section 132 of the Act. This non-filing of the charge sheet within the stipulated period gave the applicant an indefeasible right to be released on bail. The applicant cited relevant judgments to support this argument. 3. Opposition by Respondent: The respondent opposed the bail application, stating that the applicant did not cooperate in the investigation and had allegedly forged documents. The respondent argued that since Section 467 of the IPC was applicable, allowing for a charge sheet to be filed within 90 days, the applicant should not be granted bail. The respondent referred to various judgments to support their opposition. 4. Court's Decision and Legal Analysis: The court noted that the applicant was facing investigation under Section 132 of the Act, which carries a maximum sentence of five years. As the charge sheet was not filed within 60 days, the right to 'default bail' accrued to the applicant, as established in previous judgments. The court emphasized the concept of 'default bail' and the necessity for the investigating agency to adhere to the prescribed timelines. 5. Grant of Bail with Stringent Conditions: Considering the legal position and the allegations, the court granted bail to the applicant with stringent conditions. The court directed the applicant to furnish a personal bond and imposed various conditions, including surrendering the passport, regular appearance before the Investigating Officer, cooperation in the investigation, compliance with bond terms, and refraining from committing similar offences or influencing witnesses. 6. Operative Conditions and Compliance: The court specified that the bail order would remain operative subject to strict compliance with the outlined conditions. The court directed the applicant to cooperate fully in the investigation and trial, attend court as required, and refrain from leaving the country without permission. The court also instructed the trial court to be informed of the bail order for monitoring and compliance. This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the legal judgment, highlighting the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, the court's decision, and the stringent conditions imposed for granting bail to the applicant.
|
