2020 (2) TMI 429 - HC - GST

Grant of default bail - Section 167(2) CrPC - evasion of tax - charge sheet was not filed within sixty days, applicant was enlarged on default bail - applicant is not able to fulfil the said conditions imposed by Court below. - HELD THAT - The application is liable to be allowed and the conditions imposed by the Court below vide impugned order are liable to be modified - bail granted subject to conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash and modify bail conditions imposed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Analysis:
The applicant filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash condition nos. 1 and 2 imposed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate in the order granting default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC in a case registered under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act. The applicant argued that the conditions, requiring a Bank Guarantee of Rupees Three Crores, a deposit of Rupees One Crore, and surety bonds of Rupees Twenty Lakh each, were onerous and beyond his capacity. The applicant cited previous court decisions to support the argument that such stringent conditions amount to denial of bail.

The Department, opposing the applicant's plea, contended that considering the alleged evasion of about Rupees Nine Crores, the conditions were justified and not excessive. After hearing both parties, the Court examined the facts and conditions imposed by the lower court. Despite the significant amount involved, the Court found that conditions 1 and 2 were indeed onerous and went against the spirit of bail, tantamount to denial of bail. Therefore, the Court agreed with the applicant's argument and decided to modify the conditions.

The Court allowed the application and modified the conditions as follows: Condition No. 1 was deleted, Condition No. 2 was reduced to Rupees 50,00,000/-, subject to final decision, and an additional condition was imposed prohibiting the applicant from leaving the country without court permission and requiring the deposit of any passport issued in his name with the court. The rest of the terms and directions in the impugned order remained in force. The judgment highlighted the importance of balancing the severity of the alleged offense with the principles of bail, ensuring that conditions are not unduly burdensome and do not amount to a denial of bail.