9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 264 - DSC - GSTGrant of Interim Bail - it is contended that, the applicant has been made accused for causing huge revenue loss of several crores to the department/DGGI, but not even a single penny has been released to the applicant by government and the entire theory of cheating of such a huge amount is speculative - HELD THAT - The relaxations granted by the High Powered Committee vide the said guidelines were not to be made applicable in certain cases like cases pertaining to recovery of intermediary and large quantity of drugs under NDPS Act, cases under Sections 4 6 of the POCSO Act, cases of rape under different Sections as stated in the guidelines, cases of foreign nationals and also the cases under PC Act/PMLA and those investigated by CBI/ED/NIA/Special Cell Police/Crime Branch/SIFO and terror related cases under Anti-national Activities and Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act) etc. The allegations against the applicant are that she was an active director of the above company and was involved in passing and issuance of fake ITCs valuing around ₹ 274 crores and it has been alleged that against the Inward supply of ₹ 355 corers involving ITC amounting to ₹ 65 crores, they had shown Outward supply of ₹ 1560 corers attracting ITC of ₹ 274 crores. It has also been alleged that on the basis of above fake ITCs of ₹ 274 crores, certain other companies had also availed refund/adjustment of the above amount of tax in relation to their import and export transactions and thus, a huge financial loss has been caused to the department. It has also been brought to notice of this court that previously also the applicant has been involved in a case of banking fraud valuing more than ₹ 2 corers at Gurugram, Haryana, though she stated to be on bail in the said case. Application for interim bail is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
Interim bail application based on High Powered Committee guidelines dated 31.07.2020 for release of undertrial prisoners (UTPs) due to COVID-19 pandemic, applicability of guidelines for cases with maximum sentence of 7 years or less, seriousness of economic offenses, discretion of the court in granting bail, exclusion of certain cases from relaxation guidelines. Analysis: The judgment dealt with an interim bail application filed by an accused seeking release based on the guidelines of the High Powered Committee formed by the Hon'ble High Court. The Committee had not issued fresh guidelines on 31.07.2020 but had only clarified that UTPs falling within criteria set in earlier meetings could seek interim bail for 45 days. The relevant guidelines for cases with a maximum sentence of 7 years or less were laid down on 28.03.2020, allowing release for UTPs in custody for a month or more, especially for female UTPs in custody for 15 days or more. The court noted that the applicant's case fell within these guidelines as she was accused of offenses with a maximum sentence of 5 years and had been in custody for over a year. The applicant argued against the rejection of her bail application, emphasizing that no funds were released to her despite allegations of causing significant revenue loss. However, the prosecution contended that the applicant was involved in fraudulent activities leading to a loss of approximately ?274 crores to the government. The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, including the involvement of the applicant in passing fake Input Tax Credits (ITCs) and the financial implications of her actions. The judgment highlighted the discretion of the court in granting bail, referencing a previous case where economic offenses were treated differently. The court also cited the guidelines issued by the High Powered Committee, excluding certain categories of cases from the relaxation provisions, such as cases involving serious economic offenses investigated by specific agencies. The court concluded that the applicant's case, involving substantial financial loss and previous involvement in banking fraud, did not align with the intention behind the guidelines aimed at decongesting jails during the pandemic. Therefore, the court dismissed the application for interim bail based on the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the offenses.
|
