2021 (5) TMI 171 - DSC - GST

Grant of Bail - issuance of fake invoices of other firms without accompanying the goods - economic offence or not - huge loss to the tune of ₹ 7-8 crores - non-bailable offence or not - HELD THAT - In the present case also in the reply itself it has been mentioned that accused has admitted of causing loss to the tune of ₹ 7-8 crores to the exchequer. Accused is in custody since 25.03.2021. To decide whether or not admit accused on bail or not abovesaid parameters as held by Hon ble Supreme Court of India have to be measured/have to be assessed. The fact that accused was straightaway sent to judicial custody is prima facie indicative of the fact that accused is not required for custodial interrogation. Further, no previous involvement of accused in any similar offence has been brought on record which implies that it is his first offence and he is not a habitual offender. It is also to be seen that accused is not at a flight risk and no submissions have been made to this effect. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, the period of incarceration and the fact that accused is not required for any further custodial interrogation, which is otherwise also not possible as 15 days since arrest of accused have already passed, as well as no report of any previous involvement, accused is admitted in bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/-, with one surety of equal amount, subject to the terms imposed. Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of arrest and remand application under CGST Act.
2. Admissibility of voluntary statement and evidence in economic offence case.
3. Consideration for bail application under specific parameters.

Issue 1: Validity of arrest and remand application under CGST Act:
The applicant argued that the arrest was arbitrary and unjustified, citing discrepancies in the remand application. They contended that no custodial interrogation was sought, making the arrest unnecessary. The applicant highlighted the bail provisions based on the alleged amount involved, emphasizing the bailable nature of offenses up to ?5 crores. They referenced Section 41(A) of Cr.PC and various judgments to support their case. The applicant asserted that no material supported a reason to believe in the alleged offense, questioning the severity of the accusations given the amount involved.

Issue 2: Admissibility of voluntary statement and evidence in economic offense case:
The respondent department argued that the offense was a result of deliberate planning, causing significant loss to the national treasury. They presented details of fake transactions and the accused's involvement in the economic offense. The respondent highlighted the seriousness of the offense and ongoing investigations to uncover further details. They contended that the accused's admission of causing a substantial loss supported the gravity of the charges. The respondent department referenced judgments to counter the applicant's arguments, emphasizing the need for a separate approach to economic offenses.

Issue 3: Consideration for bail application under specific parameters:
The judge referred to the parameters outlined by the Supreme Court for bail consideration. The judge noted the admission of causing a substantial loss by the accused and the time spent in custody. Considering the lack of previous offenses and flight risk, the judge found no need for further custodial interrogation. The judge addressed the respondent's argument regarding pending investigations and the absence of the accused's brother. Ultimately, the judge granted bail to the accused based on specific terms, including surrendering the passport and cooperating in the investigation.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Patiala House Court covers the issues related to the validity of arrest under the CGST Act, admissibility of evidence in an economic offense case, and the specific parameters considered for a bail application in such circumstances.