2022 (2) TMI 512 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of regular bail - allegation alleged against the petitioner is of evading goods and service tax and the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 02 years and 08 months - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment PARESH NATHALAL CHAUHAN VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT ANR. 2022 (2) TMI 351 - SUPREME COURT in a case relating to the evasion of GST, has held that the accused cannot be indefinitely detained in a custody and granted the concession of regular bail, where the accused had undergone custody for a period of 25 months. The allegations alleged against the petitioner are yet to be proved and in case, those allegations are proved, the petitioner can be sentenced to under go imprisonment for a maximum period of five years. As of now, during the course of trial itself, the petitioner has undergone custody for the last 02 years and 08 months - in the present case, the custody period of the petitioner is more than the accused, who was before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, especially, in view of the fact that the assertions of the petitioner is that the entire wrongful tax credit amount stands discharged by the recipient tax payer firm and there is no loss, as of now, to the State exchequer, coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take some time before it concludes as the Courts are working in a restrictive manner due to the pandemic of Covid-19, the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of regular bail especially, when learned counsel for the petitioner has undertaken before this Court that the petitioner will not obstruct the trial or influence the witnesses, whose statements are yet to be recorded in any manner. In case of default of the above undertaking, the State will be at liberty to approach this Court for passing appropriate orders. The trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned is directed to put appropriate conditions upon the petitioner so as to ensure that petitioner does not flee the trial - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of regular bail in a complaint case under Haryana Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking regular bail in a complaint case registered under Section 132 of Haryana Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that even if convicted, the maximum sentence would be five years, but he had already been in custody for 2 years and 8 months, more than half of the potential sentence. The petitioner requested bail with conditions to ensure trial participation without fleeing. The State counsel acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but also recognized the extended custody period. The court referred to a recent Supreme Court judgment where bail was granted to an accused after 25 months in custody, emphasizing that prolonged detention without trial is not permissible.

The court noted that the allegations against the petitioner were yet to be proven, and if convicted, the maximum sentence would be five years. Considering the time spent in custody, the court found that the petitioner had made a case for bail, especially due to the pandemic-related delays in court proceedings. The petitioner's counsel assured the court of non-interference with the trial or witnesses. The court directed the trial court to impose suitable conditions to prevent the petitioner from absconding but clarified that the decision did not imply any opinion on the case's merits. The judgment highlighted the need to balance the right to liberty with the seriousness of the allegations and the delay in trial proceedings due to the pandemic.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petitioner's application for regular bail, considering the time already spent in custody, the nature of the allegations, and the delays in trial proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring the petitioner's participation in the trial while balancing the right to liberty. The decision was based on the principles of fairness, proportionality, and the need to prevent prolonged detention without trial.