9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 294 - HC - GSTGrant of Regular Bail - Section 132(1)(a) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail, on executing a personal bond of ₹ 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.
Issues:
Application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with an alleged offence under Section 132(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Analysis: 1. The applicant sought regular bail citing the nature of the offence and proposed suitable conditions, while the respondent-State opposed bail based on the gravity of the offence. 2. The Additional Solicitor General argued that the applicant, as the de facto owner of the company, was involved in evading GST, resulting in a substantial amount of evasion. The applicant had previously offered to deposit 10% of the evaded tax before the Sessions Court. 3. The Court considered various aspects, including the timeline of events, the applicant's custody since the arrest, the conclusion of the investigation with a filed charge-sheet, and the possibility of default bail due to the statutory period. 4. The applicant's defense highlighted that the applicant's brother, residing in a different state, was the proprietor of the firm, and the applicant was not directly involved in the manufacturing and marketing activities central to the alleged offence. 5. It was noted that the applicant had cooperated with the investigation, and the maximum sentence for the alleged offence was five years. Additionally, the applicant's age (61 years) and health issues were taken into consideration. 6. The Court acknowledged the absence of instructions for the applicant to deposit 10% before the trial Court and the lack of special circumstances against the applicant as per the investigating officer's instructions. 7. Without delving into detailed evidence, the Court found it a fit case to grant regular bail to the applicant considering the nature of the allegations in the FIR. 8. The Court ordered the applicant's release on regular bail upon executing a personal bond and surety, subject to specific conditions to ensure compliance and prevent misuse of liberty. 9. The release was contingent upon the applicant not being required in connection with any other offence, with provisions for the Sessions Judge to take action in case of breaching the imposed conditions. 10. The lower Court was tasked with executing the bail bond and had the authority to modify or relax the conditions as per legal requirements. 11. The Court emphasized that its observations at the bail stage should not influence the trial Court's decision regarding evidence during the trial proceedings. 12. The rule was made absolute to the specified extent, with permission for direct service. This comprehensive analysis covers the key aspects and considerations of the judgment regarding the application for regular bail in the stated case.
|
