2021 (8) TMI 1136 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Bail - issuance of fake invoices - Offences punishable u/s 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - In this case, nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court indicating the fact that the petitioner, who was all along in custody has contributed to the delay of conclusion of the trial, rather the order of the Magistrate speaks that the complainant is not producing the witnesses, as such, the delay. In such premises, even if right to be released on bail for such delay under the provision, is not an absolute right in view of the first proviso inasmuch as in appropriate cases, the detention of the Petitioner for a longer period can be ordered, even if he has undergone more than one-half of the sentence prescribed, but such discretion should be used to deny the benefit under Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. when the accused mischievously or purposefully delaying the trial and the delay in disposal is attributable to him. This Court extending the benefit of mandate of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. directs the trial Court to release the Petitioner on bail in the case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Delay in trial proceedings - Application of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. - Discretion of the Court in granting bail.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Director and Authorized Signatory of trading companies, was in custody for alleged involvement in issuing fake invoices resulting in revenue loss. The petitioner's bail was rejected earlier but granted interim bail by the High Court for 60 days with a directive to conclude the trial within six months. However, due to non-production of witnesses by the complainant, trial delays occurred despite the petitioner's cooperation since 2018.

The Court noted that the prosecution seemed disinterested in expediting the trial, and the petitioner had already served more than 50% of the potential sentence. Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. allows release on personal bond after serving half the maximum sentence, with provisions for extended detention based on circumstances. The Court emphasized that bail due to trial delay is not an absolute right and can be denied if the accused purposefully delays proceedings.

Since the petitioner did not contribute to trial delays and the complainant's failure to produce witnesses caused the delay, the Court invoked Section 436-A and directed the trial Court to release the petitioner on bail. The conditions included surrendering any passport, appearing in court regularly, reporting to the police station weekly, staying within court jurisdiction, and refraining from criminal activities, with bail cancellation for non-compliance.

The Court disposed of the bail application, allowing the petitioner's release. Additionally, due to COVID-19 restrictions, parties were permitted to utilize the High Court's website order printout as a certified copy, following prescribed attestation procedures by the concerned advocate.