9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 157 - DSC - GSTRight of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C - offence u/s 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(1)(i) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Record of the case reveals that the applicant was apprehended in this case on 12.11.2020 and produced before the Magistrate on 13.11.2020. The statutory period as provided under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C i.e. 60 days had expired on 11.01.2021. The complaint/final report in this case were submitted before this court on 11.01.2021 itself. The application in hand has moved on 13.01.2021 i.e. 2 days after filing of the complaint/final report in the matter. Ashish Kumar Sharma. It is also a matter of record that the averments made in the complaint are clearly in respect of the averments made in the first application for judicial custody of the accused moved in this case - application dismissed.
Issues:
1. Application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C for bail due to incomplete investigation. 2. Interpretation of the complaint filed after completion of investigation. 3. Determining the eligibility for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Analysis: 1. The applicant, arrested in connection with a case under the CGST Act, moved an application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, claiming that the investigation in the case he was arrested for was incomplete even after the expiry of the 60-day custody period. The applicant argued that he should be granted bail due to the ongoing investigation. Citing relevant judgments, the applicant sought bail based on incomplete investigation, emphasizing that a partial investigation report was insufficient to deprive him of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. 2. The respondent, through its counsel, contended that the complaint filed after completion of the investigation was in response to the case under the CGST Act and was to be treated as a complaint case. The respondent argued that the complaint, although not explicitly mentioning the file number, was directly related to the completed investigation in the mentioned case file. The respondent maintained that the papers submitted to the court represented the culmination of the investigation, justifying the filing of the complaint as a response to the completed investigation. 3. After hearing arguments from both sides and carefully examining the record, the court deliberated on the interpretation of the complaint filed post-investigation completion. The court found merit in the respondent's submissions, emphasizing that the complaint, even without explicit mention of the completion of investigation, was directly linked to the case under the CGST Act and was filed subsequent to the investigation's conclusion. The court noted that the complaint's filing on the same day as the expiry of the statutory custody period further supported the respondent's stance. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's plea for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C, ruling that the contentions raised did not fall within the purview of the mentioned provision. In conclusion, the court's decision to dismiss the application for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C was based on the interpretation of the complaint filed after the completion of the investigation, which was deemed directly related to the case in question. The court's analysis focused on the timing of the complaint submission, the nature of the case, and the absence of explicit references to the investigation's completion in the complaint.
|
