9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 233 - DSC - GSTGrant of Bail - fake ITC availed - evasion of GST - fake billing - Bail application was sought to be dismissed on the ground that accused may tamper with the evidences - HELD THAT - While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, but if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. then bail will be refused - Furthermore, In the landmark Judgment of Gurucharan Singh and others v. State 1977 (12) TMI 141 - SUPREME COURT , It was held that there is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of such discretion by the courts. It was further held that there cannot be any Inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. It was further held that facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail. No doubt, economic offences should be dealt with sternly, however mere allegations of economic offence does not dis-entitled any person from seeking personal liberty unless there are overwhelming material against such person. In the present case, no trail has been brought on record which shows that accused Ashish Aggarwal is the ultimate beneficiary of alleged fake ITC credits - pre trial detention of accused Ashish Aggarwal is no more required as firstly, he has not been investigated / interrogated while remained in judicial custody since 29.10.2020, secondly, all evidences against the accused are primarily documentary in nature and also the fact that he is not the ultimate beneficiary of alleged fake ITC Credits. The accused Ashish Aggarwal Is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond In the sum of Rupees One Lakh with one surety of like amount subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for bail under Section 437 CrPC. 2. Medical condition and family responsibilities of the accused. 3. Allegations of GST evasion and fake ITC credits. 4. Risk of the accused hampering the investigation. 5. Legal principles and precedents regarding bail. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Bail under Section 437 CrPC: The accused applied for bail under Section 437 of the CrPC. The court examined whether the accused should be granted bail based on the arguments and evidence presented by both the defense and the prosecution. 2. Medical Condition and Family Responsibilities of the Accused: The defense argued that the accused, aged 44, suffers from severe Sleep Apnea and Hypertension, which could lead to sudden cardiac or brain death. Additionally, the accused's mother, aged 66, suffers from multiple severe health issues and is bedridden, with no one else available to care for her. The court noted the medical condition of the accused but found no circumstances that made the accused particularly susceptible to aggravated diseases. However, the court acknowledged the responsibility of the accused to look after his ailing mother. 3. Allegations of GST Evasion and Fake ITC Credits: The prosecution alleged that the accused was involved in passing off fake Input Tax Credits (ITC) amounting to ?77 Crores through multiple firms. The accused admitted to these activities in his statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act. However, the defense argued that the accused was not the ultimate beneficiary of the alleged evasion and that ?7 Crores had already been secured. The court noted that no documents were produced to show the accused's handling of M/s. Maya Impex and that no action was taken against the firm's proprietor, Smt. Sushma Rani, based solely on her statement. 4. Risk of the Accused Hampering the Investigation: The prosecution contended that the accused, if released on bail, might hamper the investigation by contacting parties involved in the network. However, the court found that the investigation was primarily document-based, with most records available to the investigating agency. The court also noted that the accused had not been interrogated since being remanded to judicial custody and that his statement had been retracted. 5. Legal Principles and Precedents Regarding Bail: The court emphasized the importance of personal liberty, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The court considered various factors, including the nature of the accusation, the evidence, the gravity of the offense, and the likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence. The court cited several legal precedents, including the landmark judgment of Gurucharan Singh and others v. State, which highlighted the discretionary nature of bail decisions based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Conclusion: The court concluded that pre-trial detention of the accused was no longer required, as the accused had not been interrogated during judicial custody, the evidence was primarily documentary, and there was no indication that the accused was the ultimate beneficiary of the alleged fake ITC credits. The court granted bail to the accused on furnishing a bail bond of ?1 Lakh with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including joining the investigation, not leaving the country without permission, and not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The application was disposed of, and a copy of the order was sent to all parties.
|
