2020 (2) TMI 430 - HC - GST

Grant of anticipatory bail - input tax credit - generating of fake and fabricated documents availed or to make other availed and illegal input tax credit causing huge loss to the revenue - HELD THAT - Learned Advocate for the applicants on instructions states that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions, including imposition of conditions with regard to the powers of Investigating Agency to file an application before the competent court for their remand. He would further submit that upon filing of such application by the Investigating Agency, the right of the applicants-accused to oppose such application on merits may be kept open. The present application is allowed by directing that in the event of arrest of the applicants herein in connection with FIR registered - the applicants shall be released on bail subject to conditions imposed. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for Police remand of the applicants. - if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicants, even if, remanded to the Police custody, upon completion of such period of Police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.

Summary

Issues:
Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offence under provisions of GST Act.

Analysis:
The applicants filed an application seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an offence under the GST Act. The advocate for the applicants argued for bail based on the nature of the offence and proposed suitable conditions. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application citing the gravity of the offence. The advocate for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the bail application, highlighting the role of applicant No.1 in generating fake documents causing revenue loss. After hearing both sides, the court decided to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants without delving into detailed evidence, considering the nature of allegations and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in previous cases.

The court considered various aspects before granting bail, such as the age and medical condition of applicant No.1, the role of applicant No.2 as a partner in the business, statements recorded during investigation, and the absence of special circumstances against the applicants. The applicants expressed willingness to comply with all conditions imposed, including cooperating with the investigation and attending the police station when required. The court allowed the application and directed the release of the applicants on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with specified conditions.

Despite granting bail, the Investigating Agency retained the right to apply for police remand if necessary, and the applicants were required to appear before the Magistrate as directed. The court clarified that the observations made during the bail order should not influence the Trial Court during the trial. The application for anticipatory bail was allowed, and the rule was made absolute in the specified terms, with direct service permitted.