2020 (3) TMI 726 - HC - GST

Grant of regular bail - offence under Sections 132(1)(b),(c),(f), (k), (l) of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record and taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of offences, role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Bail is granted with certain conditions imposed.

Summary

Issues:
Application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences under Sections 132(1)(b),(c),(f), (k), (l) of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis:

1. Nature of Offence and Bail Application:
The applicant filed an application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with a case involving offences under Sections 132(1)(b),(c),(f), (k), (l) of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant sought bail based on the nature of the offence.

2. Submissions and Opposition:
The applicant's advocate argued for bail considering the nature of the offence, while the APP representing the respondent opposed bail due to the gravity of the offence.

3. Court's Decision:
After hearing both parties and examining the case details, the Court decided to grant regular bail to the applicant. The Court considered various aspects, including the time elapsed since the arrest, the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offences, and the role attributed to the accused.

4. Considerations for Bail Grant:
The Court noted that almost 90 days had passed since the applicant's arrest. The offences the applicant was charged with carried a maximum punishment of 5 years, and the amount involved in the wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit exceeded ?5 crores. Additionally, the fact that no remand was sought by the department after the applicant's arrest was taken into account.

5. Precedent and Bail Conditions:
The Court referenced the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a specific case. The bail was granted with specific conditions, including executing a personal bond, surrendering the passport, marking regular presence, providing residence details, and undertaking not to transfer any immovable properties.

6. Additional Bail Conditions and Authorities' Role:
The applicant was required to comply with various conditions, such as not misusing liberty, cooperating with the investigation, and not leaving the country without permission. The authorities were instructed to release the applicant only if not required in connection with any other offence, with the Sessions Judge empowered to take action in case of condition breaches.

7. Trial Court's Independence:
The Trial Court was directed not to be influenced by the prima facie observations made by the High Court in the bail order.

8. Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the bail application and specified detailed conditions for the applicant's release, emphasizing compliance with the set terms and the Trial Court's independent judgment during the trial proceedings.