2020 (4) TMI 591 - HC - GST

Grant of bail - offences under Sections 132(1), (b), (c), (f), (h), (j) and (k) read with Section 132(1)(i) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - case of petitioner is that petitioner has been falsely involved in this case - pre-charge evidence - HELD THAT - Bail petitions filed by the co-accused Sandeep Kumar Agarwal and Ram Kumar were dismissed by this Court on merits. Bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court in view of the fact that bail petitions filed by the co-accused had been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court Other co-accused were granted bail under Section 1674(2) Cr.P.C. No ground for grant of bail made out - bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Bail application under Section 439 CrPC for offenses under CGST Act, 2017

Analysis:

1. Petitioner's Claim for Bail:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail for offenses under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (f), (h), (j), and (k) read with Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, through counsel, contended that he had been falsely implicated in the case. Despite being in custody since 20.6.2018, the trial court had not progressed beyond pre-charge evidence. The statement of witnesses revealed no case against the petitioner, especially when other co-accused were already out on bail.

2. Opposition by Union of India:
The respondent, representing the Union of India, opposed the bail petition, highlighting the gravity of the fraud allegedly committed by the accused. The case involved a substantial amount of ?22 Crores, where the petitioner and his co-accused were accused of setting up fictitious firms to claim tax input credit exceeding the said amount. Notably, bail petitions of other co-accused had been dismissed by the court on merits, indicating the seriousness of the allegations. The petitioner's previous bail application had also been rejected by the court, considering the decisions on co-accused bail petitions.

3. Court's Decision:
In light of the severe allegations and the precedent set by the rejection of bail for co-accused, the court found no grounds to grant bail to the petitioner. The court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the substantial amount involved in the fraudulent activities. The decision reflected the court's stance on maintaining consistency in bail decisions concerning co-accused in the same case.

4. Final Verdict:
The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina, presiding over the case, delivered the judgment dismissing the petitioner's bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC. The decision was based on the perceived gravity of the offenses, the substantial amount involved in the fraud, and the previous rulings on bail applications of co-accused individuals. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering the nature and scale of the alleged criminal activities in determining bail eligibility, especially in cases involving significant financial implications.