9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 869 - HC - GSTGrant of parole/interim Bail - offence under Section 132(1) (b) (c) and (i) of CGST Act - directions issued by HPC not followed - HELD THAT - On perusal of direction issued by HPC on 30.4.2021, it is found that no such condition on the basis of which impugned order has been passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, therefore, impugned order lacks merit and is liable to be quashed. The order passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut is quashed and petition is allowed - Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut is directed to reconsider the application of petitioner and pass reasoned order within one week from the date of production of computer generated copy of this order strictly in accordance with direction issued by HPC vide letter dated 30.4.2021.
Issues:
1. Impleading of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate as a respondent. 2. Consideration of release on parole/interim bail under the direction of High Power Committee (HPC). 3. Rejection of bail application by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate. 4. Compliance with the directions issued by HPC. 5. Quashing of the impugned order and remand for fresh consideration. Analysis: 1. The petitioner raised a concern regarding the impleading of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate as a respondent, which was rectified upon the oral request of the learned Senior Advocate and was not objected by the Additional Advocate General. Consequently, respondent no. 3 was deleted from the array of respondents. 2. The petitioner contended that under the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the High Power Committee (HPC) was constituted, and directions were issued for the release of prisoners on parole/interim bail due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner, arrested under specific sections of the CGST Act, argued for release based on the directions of the HPC and previous instances of granting bail to similarly situated prisoners. 3. The Special Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the petitioner's bail application on the grounds that there were no pending bail applications before higher courts and no bail rejection order had been passed. The petitioner argued that the rejection was contrary to the directions of the HPC dated 30.4.2021, which did not impose such conditions for release on parole/interim bail. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General acknowledged the absence of conditions in the HPC's direction that justified the impugned order. It was agreed that the impugned order lacked merit and should be quashed, with a direction to reconsider the petitioner's application in line with the HPC's directions. 5. The High Court, after considering the submissions and the HPC's direction, found the impugned order lacking merit and quashed it. The Special Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to reexamine the petitioner's application and provide a reasoned order within a week, strictly adhering to the HPC's direction issued on 30.4.2021.
|
