2020 (4) TMI 688 - HC - GST

Grant of Bail - offence punishable under Section 409, 467, 468, 120-B and 427 of the IPC - fabricated and forged invoices without supplying the material - absence of E-Way Bill - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that the applicant is in custody since 28.11.2019 and in the present scenario conclusion of trial is likely to take time and also taking note of the submission of counsel for the applicant in respect of the condition relating to deposit of the amount, it is directed that the applicant-Lalit Kumar Gandhi will be released on bail subject to complying with the following conditions - Applicant will furnishing a personal bond of ₹ 1 Lac and two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance as and when directed - The applicant will deposit ₹ 50 Lacs with the trial Court, which will be kept by the trial Court in the Fixed Deposit in a nationalised Bank and he will also furnish solvent security with the trial Court for the remaining amount of ₹ 1,72,50,000/-.

Summary

Issues: Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. during trial for offences under IPC Sections 409, 467, 468, 120-B, and 427.

The judgment pertains to an application for bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code during trial for multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code. The applicant is facing charges under Sections 409, 467, 468, 120-B, and 427 of the IPC, registered at a police station in Rajgarh. The allegations involve a financial transaction where the applicant received a significant sum for the supply of pesticides but allegedly did not fulfill the entire supply, leading to accusations of fabricating invoices and misbehavior towards the complainant. The applicant's counsel argued that the transaction spanned three years, and discrepancies in invoices were not indicative of fabrication as they were reflected accurately in GST returns. Additionally, the counsel highlighted that the applicant had lodged a complaint himself regarding pending payments. The State's counsel opposed bail, citing fabricated invoices, discrepancies in records seized from the applicant, and the absence of criminal antecedent verification due to Covid-19 restrictions. The objector's counsel also opposed bail, pointing out the lack of E-Way Bills for the disputed supply transactions and inconsistencies in the invoices submitted.

The Court considered the submissions from all parties, taking into account the ongoing Covid-19 situation, the applicant's prolonged custody, and the potential trial delays. In light of these factors and the applicant's willingness to comply with certain conditions, bail was granted. The conditions included furnishing a personal bond and local sureties, depositing a substantial sum with the trial court, attending all trial hearings, and complying with the specified financial obligations. The judgment emphasized the importance of meeting these conditions to maintain the bail status and concluded the matter by disposing of the application.