2020 (7) TMI 163 - HC - GST

Grant of Statutory Bail - offence under Section 132(1)(b) (c) and 132(5) of the CGST Act 2017 - inability to deposit cash security - it is the contention of the petitioners that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the family members are unable to raise funds and deposit the amount - HELD THAT - The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on executing their own bond for a sum of ₹ 50,000/- each, before the Superintendent of the concerned prison, in which the petitioner has been confined and thereafter on their release - each of the petitioners shall furnish two sureties who shall deposit title deeds of immovable properties each to the value of ₹ 20lakhs before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EO-I), Egmore, Chennai within four weeks from the lifting of the lock down or the commencement of the Court's normal functioning, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically.

Summary

Issues:
Seeking modification of conditions in statutory bail orders dated 19.02.2020 passed in Crl.M.P Nos.37 and 36 of 2020 in R.R.42 and 41 of 2019 respectively.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners were arrested for offenses under Section 132(1)(b) & (c) and 132(5) of the CGST Act 2017. They applied for statutory bail due to the absence of a final report by the police. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate granted bail with conditions including a cash surety of ?5,00,000 and title deeds of immovable properties worth ?20 lakhs. The petitioners, unable to comply, sought modification before the Principal Sessions Judge, who partly modified the condition. However, the petitioners remained in jail as they couldn't meet the modified condition either.

2. The petitioners argued that the conditions imposed were onerous and prevented them from availing statutory bail, constituting a violation of their indefeasible right under Section 167(2). They contended that the continued detention amounted to a pre-trial conviction, especially considering the Covid-19 pandemic. Citing a previous judgment, the petitioners sought a further modification of the conditions.

3. The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the modification, alleging the petitioners' involvement in fraudulent activities amounting to over ?122 crores. The petitioners had offered to deposit ?5,00,000 before the Sessions Court, but due to financial constraints exacerbated by Covid-19, they were unable to fulfill this condition.

4. The Court, considering the arguments and circumstances, set aside the condition directing the cash deposit of ?5,00,000. Instead, the petitioners were ordered to be released on bail by executing their own bond of ?50,000 each. They were required to provide two sureties depositing title deeds of immovable properties worth ?20 lakhs each within four weeks from the lifting of the lockdown or resumption of normal court functioning. Non-compliance would result in automatic dismissal of the bail. Additionally, the petitioners were directed to report daily to the police until further orders.

By providing a detailed analysis of the issues raised in the judgment, the Court's decision to modify the bail conditions was explained thoroughly, considering the legal arguments and factual circumstances presented by both parties.