2021 (10) TMI 833 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - allegation is that firm got registered on the basis of forged and fabricated documents to avail of input tax credit - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the petitioner is mere an accountant in one of the firms being run by Jarnail Singh accused. The reply of the State clearly illustrates that no specific role is attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the offence who merely was doing his duty as an accountant. Moreover, all the accused have been allowed regular bails by the different Courts. The offences being bailable triable by the Magistrate and in view of Covid 19 pandemic, the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and in view of the period of incarceration impels this Court to allow the bail. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Regular bail application in a case involving GST embezzlement, petitioner's role as an accountant, influence on trial, heinousness of the offence, comparison with co-accused.

Analysis:
In this judgment, the Hon'ble Justice Fateh Deep Singh of the Punjab and Haryana High Court considered a regular bail application in a case involving allegations of GST embezzlement under various sections of the IPC. The petitioner, an accountant with a firm, was accused of being involved in fraudulent activities totaling 64 lacs. The primary accused, Jarnail Singh, had allegedly registered the firm under CGST and HGST Acts using forged documents to avail input tax credit. The petitioner's counsel argued that he had no specific role in the offense, was merely an accountant, and that similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail by other courts. On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General of Haryana opposed the bail application, emphasizing the financial loss caused to the state due to the embezzlement racket run by the accused firms.

The court noted that the petitioner was just an accountant in the firm and that no specific role in the offense was attributed to him. Given that all the accused had been granted regular bail by different courts, and considering the bailable nature of the offenses, the court found that the petitioner's continued incarceration during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic was unjust. The court also observed that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon due to the pandemic, further justifying the grant of bail. Consequently, the court ordered the petitioner's release on regular bail, subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. It was clarified that the decision to grant bail should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The judgment was disposed of, allowing the petitioner's release pending trial.