2020 (12) TMI 271 - HC - GST

Grant of Bail - pre-charge evidence - 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 - HELD THAT - Case is listed for pre-charge evidence before the trial court and statements of fifteen witnesses out of forty-five prosecution witnesses have been recorded so far. There is no possibility of conclusion of trial at an early date. Although in the present case allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature but the fact remains that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than two years and admittedly maximum punishment to be imposed on the accused, if convicted, is five years. 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 petitioner, but without commenting on the merits of the case, it would be just and expedient to order release of the petitioner on bail. Petitioner be admitted to bail subject to 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:
1. Petition for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Consideration of bail based on the duration of custody, seriousness of allegations, and likelihood of trial conclusion.
3. Comparison of arguments by both the petitioner and respondent regarding the seriousness of the allegations and the period of custody.
4. Application of legal principles from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 to the present case.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had been in custody for over two years, and the maximum punishment upon conviction was five years. The case was listed for pre-charge evidence, and trial proceedings were ongoing.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued for bail based on the extended custody period and the unlikelihood of an early trial conclusion. The respondent, however, opposed the petition, highlighting the serious nature of the allegations involving a fraud amounting to ?22 Crores through fictitious firms and false tax credit claims. Despite the seriousness of the allegations, considering the extended custody period and the maximum potential sentence, the court found it just and expedient to grant bail.

3. The court considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the seriousness of the allegations and the duration of custody. While acknowledging the gravity of the charges, the court emphasized the importance of balancing the custody period with the potential sentence, ultimately leading to the decision to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The court relied on the legal principles established in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40. The Supreme Court's judgment emphasized that bail should not be denied solely based on community sentiments and highlighted the purpose of bail in criminal cases. The court applied these principles to the present case, considering the petitioner's custody duration and the potential sentence, leading to the decision to grant bail with specific conditions, including a bail bond and restrictions on leaving the country without court permission.