2020 (10) TMI 672 - HC - GST

Grant of Regular Bail - offences under Sections 132(1) (b) (c) (d) (f) (i) and (l) read with Section 132 (1) (i) (iv) and read with sub-section (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Although in the present case allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature but the fact remains that the petitioners are in custody for the last more than two years and admittedly maximum punishment to be imposed on the accused, if convicted, is five years. Complaint in the present case was filed in the year 2018, whereas, the investigation has been concluded in July, 2020. Now the case is listed before the trial court for recording of pre-charge evidence and the trial may not be concluded at an early date. Considering the custody period of the petitioners, but without commenting on the merits of the case, it would be just and expedient to order release of the petitioners on bail - Petitioners be admitted to bail subject to each of them furnishing bail bond in the sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:

The petitioners filed bail petitions seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences under Sections 132(1) (b) (c) (d) (f) (i) and (l) read with Section 132 (1) (i) (iv) and read with sub-section (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners argued that they have been in custody since 03.08.2018, and as the maximum punishment that can be awarded is a sentence of five years, they were entitled to be released on bail. They highlighted that the investigation was completed in July 2020, and the trial court was yet to commence pre-charge evidence. Citing the judgment in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the petitioners emphasized the discretion of the court in granting bail and the primary purposes of bail in a criminal case.

The respondent opposed the bail petitions, contending that the allegations against the petitioners were serious, involving the creation of 75 fake firms and issuance of GST invoices without any physical movement of goods, amounting to a substantial sum. However, despite the serious nature of the allegations, the petitioners had been in custody for over two years, and the maximum punishment upon conviction was five years. The complaint was filed in 2018, and the investigation concluded in July 2020, with the trial pending commencement of pre-charge evidence. The court, without commenting on the merits of the case, considered the period of custody and deemed it just and expedient to grant bail to the petitioners.

In the final order, the High Court allowed the petitions and admitted the petitioners to bail. Each petitioner was required to furnish a bail bond in the sum of ?10,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Additionally, the petitioners were directed not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court. The court's decision balanced the seriousness of the allegations with the petitioners' period of custody, ensuring a fair and just outcome pending trial proceedings.