2022 (10) TMI 86 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of bail - inadvertent mistake - Violation of bail conditions - failure to appear before the Investigation officer - Google pin could not be dropped to the Investigating Officer - HELD THAT - Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner was granted regular bail vide order dated 17.02.2022 and the impugned order relates to certain non-compliances of the terms and conditions to which the petitioner has given sufficient explanation. In addition, since the petitioner has already undertaken that he would appear before the Investigating Officer as and when he is called for and explain the reason if, at all, any document or information is not available to him, it would be up to the Investigating Officer after perusal or consideration of the explanation by the petitioner to form an opinion as to the whether the applicant is at all not cooperating with the investigation. This court does not find it appropriate to sustain the impugned order and, therefore, the same is set aside - Petition disposed off.

Issues involved: Bail conditions compliance, Violation of bail conditions, Cooperation with Investigating Officer

Bail conditions compliance:
The judgment pertains to a case where the petitioner was granted bail by a lower court but faced allegations of non-compliance with the conditions set by the court. The petitioner's counsel argued that the violations were not intentional but due to inadvertence. The petitioner had failed to drop a Google pin to the Investigating Officer and was unable to provide certain required information promptly. The senior counsel assured that the petitioner had been appearing before the Investigating Officer as required. The court noted that the violations did not seem serious and that the petitioner had explained the reasons for the lapses. The investigating agency's counsel also acknowledged that unless there were significant violations, there was no need to revoke bail. The court considered the explanations provided and decided that the violations were not substantial enough to warrant revocation of bail. The court emphasized the importance of cooperation and compliance with bail conditions and directed the petitioner to continue abiding by the original bail order's terms and conditions.

Violation of bail conditions:
The judgment highlighted that the lower court had observed disobedience and violations of the bail conditions by the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel contended that there was no deliberate disobedience and that any lapses were unintentional. The court examined the impugned order and found that the violations were not severe. The investigating agency's counsel agreed that as long as the petitioner cooperated and appeared before the Investigating Officer, there was no need to detain him. The court considered the overall circumstances and the petitioner's commitment to cooperate with the investigation. It concluded that the violations did not justify upholding the impugned order and set it aside, directing the petitioner to adhere to the original bail conditions.

Cooperation with Investigating Officer:
The judgment emphasized the importance of the petitioner's cooperation with the Investigating Officer. The petitioner's counsel assured the court that the petitioner had been attending as required but faced difficulties in providing certain information promptly. The investigating agency's counsel acknowledged the petitioner's cooperation and stated that as long as the petitioner continued to cooperate, there was no objection to restoring regular bail. The court stressed that the Investigating Officer could assess the petitioner's cooperation based on the explanations provided and file for bail cancellation if necessary. Ultimately, the court decided that the petitioner's cooperation and explanations were satisfactory, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and a directive for the petitioner to comply with the bail conditions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the court's considerations regarding bail conditions compliance, violations, and cooperation with the Investigating Officer, ultimately leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and maintain the petitioner's bail with a directive to adhere to the original bail conditions.

← Previous Next →