2022 (9) TMI 933 - DSC - GST

Cancellation of Regular Bail - accused is not cooperating in the investigation and not honouring the summons - goods declared as handicrafts leather wallets supplied to NADFA Trading FZE - typographical error in the application or not - HELD THAT - Considering that there is a typographical error in the title of the application and it is well settled that the Court which grants the bail can cancel the hail, therefore, present application is treated as application U/Sec.437(2) Cr.P.C. Considering that accused has admittedly not joined investigation pursuant to summons dated 19.04.2022 and 29.04.2022 and admittedly did not drop the Goggle pin location, therefore, has violated condition No.1 and 2 of bail order dated 17.02.2022 of Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Furthermore, since proper reasoning has been given by the department as to why question pertaining to M/s Zam Zam Exim Pvt. Ltd. has been put to the accused and that accused cannot avoid investigation or ignore summons issued by the department for joining investigation by raising grounds now regarding jurisdiction etc. when present application for cancellation of bail has been filed and accused has a right to silence but cannot ignore the summons issued by the department to join investigation especially when accused did not move for quashing of notice/summons himself, therefore, present application is allowed and bail granted to accused vide order dated 17.02.2022 is cancelled. Therefore, bail bonds of accused is forfeited. Let NBA shall be issued against the accused and notice U/Sec.446 Cr.P.C. to his surety, returnable on 19.09.2022.

Issues:
1. Grant of bail to the accused Mohd. Sabahuddin.
2. Allegations of fraudulent activities related to export benefits.
3. Violation of bail conditions by the accused.
4. Jurisdictional issues regarding the investigation.
5. Application for cancellation of bail under Sec.437(2) Cr.P.C.
6. Decision on the cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bail bonds.

Grant of Bail:
The accused Mohd. Sabahuddin was granted bail by the court on 17.02.2022. The Department contended that the accused was involved in fraudulent activities related to the export of goods, misrepresenting them as handicrafts to claim excess duties and benefits under various schemes. The accused was alleged to be the key figure in coordinating these activities and was found to be associated with non-existent firms. The court imposed specific conditions on the accused upon granting bail, including sharing his location with the Investigating Officer and cooperating with the investigation.

Fraudulent Activities Allegations:
The Department alleged that the accused was involved in a scheme where goods were misrepresented to claim benefits. Investigations revealed discrepancies in the goods declared and their actual value, with connections to non-existent firms. The accused was found to be associated with multiple entities engaged in fraudulent practices, leading to the suspicion of his involvement in a larger network of fraudulent activities.

Violation of Bail Conditions:
The Department claimed that the accused violated the bail conditions by failing to share his location with the Investigating Officer and not cooperating with the investigation. Despite multiple summonses and requests, the accused delayed responses citing various reasons, which the Department argued as non-cooperation and a breach of the bail conditions.

Jurisdictional Issues:
The accused's counsel raised jurisdictional issues, arguing that the court had no authority to entertain the application for cancellation of bail. The defense contended that the accused's firm fell under a different jurisdiction, and the Department's allegations were beyond the scope of the court's jurisdiction. The defense also argued that the accused had not breached the bail conditions and was being unfairly targeted by the Department.

Cancellation of Bail Decision:
After considering the arguments from both sides, the court decided to cancel the bail granted to the accused. The court found that the accused had indeed violated the bail conditions by not cooperating with the investigation and failing to share his location as required. The court emphasized that the accused cannot avoid investigation or ignore summons issued by the Department, leading to the cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bail bonds.

Legal Precedents and Final Orders:
The court cited various legal precedents to support its decision and emphasized that the accused's actions warranted the cancellation of bail. The bail bonds of the accused were forfeited, and a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued against him. The court directed a notice to the surety of the accused, returnable on a specified date.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the court's decision regarding the grant and subsequent cancellation of bail for the accused Mohd. Sabahuddin.

← Previous Next →