2021 (9) TMI 1113 - DSC - GST

Seeking grant of bail - availment of irregular credit - evasion of GST - evidence present on the case file or not, to show that the applicant/ accused was involved in getting any fake firms registered as alleged or opened fake bank accounts - Section 132 (1) (b) (c) (i) of CGST Act of 2017 - HELD THAT - This court is of the considered view that though the applicant/ accused is in custody since 04.02.2021, but taking into account the fact that the applicant is involved in a case involving fraud of ₹ 90 crores approximately and the alleged offence is an economic offence, which requires to be dealt with seriously and mere long custody would not be a ground for releasing him on bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the court as is observed by the Hon ble Apex Court in NIMMAGADDA PRASAD VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2013 (5) TMI 920 - SUPREME COURT . This court is not inclined to grant concession of bail to the applicant/ accused at this stage and the bail application of the accused is hereby dismissed - Bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Bail application for accused involved in economic fraud of approximately ?90 crores under Section 132 of CGST Act of 2017 based on disclosure statement, documentary evidence, and nexus revealed during investigation.

Analysis:

1. Grounds for Bail Application:
The accused, represented by counsel, submitted that he has been in custody since February 2021, with the complaint filed post-investigation under Sections 132(1)(b)(c)&(i) of the CGST Act. The defense argued that the case relies solely on the statement of one witness without corroborating evidence and that the accused did not benefit from the alleged transactions. It was contended that continued detention serves no purpose as the accused cooperated with the investigation and the trial may be prolonged. The defense prayed for bail citing the impact of COVID-19 and lack of substantial evidence against the accused.

2. Prosecution's Argument:
The prosecution, represented by senior counsel, countered the bail application stating that the accused was legally apprehended and his disclosure statement is admissible evidence. The prosecution highlighted the complex nature of the economic fraud involving forged firms and fake invoices amounting to ?90 crores. Emphasizing the seriousness of the offense affecting public funds, the prosecution argued against bail, citing pending witness examinations and the need for thorough investigation.

3. Judicial Decision:
After considering both parties' submissions and the case record, the court dismissed the bail application. The court noted the gravity of the economic offense, the substantial amount involved, and the potential threat to the country's financial health. Citing precedents and the seriousness of economic crimes, the court deemed the accused's continued custody necessary, emphasizing the need to address economic offenses seriously. The court set the next hearing date and tagged the bail application with the challan, clarifying that the decision does not reflect the case's merits.

4. Legal Precedents and Authorities:
The court referred to various legal citations provided by both sides but concluded that they were not applicable to the present case's unique circumstances. The court highlighted the need to assess each case independently based on its specific facts and the gravity of the offenses involved.

In conclusion, the judgment denied bail to the accused in an economic fraud case due to the substantial amount involved, the seriousness of the offense, and the potential impact on public funds and the country's economy. The decision underscores the court's duty to address economic crimes rigorously and prioritize the protection of financial integrity.