2022 (11) TMI 837 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - irregular availment of CENVAT Credit - fake firms - HELD THAT - Without commenting anything as regards the merits of the case but while noticing that the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of more than 2 years and 3 months and that the petitioner cannot be said to be the main accused, his further detention will not serve any useful purpose. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of regular bail in a case involving charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 132 (1)(B)(C) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving charges under various sections of the IPC and the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with a co-accused, fraudulently registered a firm and engaged in paper transactions to show substantial turnovers. The main accused, not the petitioner, was alleged to have orchestrated the fraud involving fake firms. The petitioner's role was described as collecting documents for registration and opening a bank account, with the main accused being the beneficiary. The petitioner had been in custody for over two years and three months, seeking bail on this basis.

The defense argued that the petitioner was a pawn used by the main accused and had a minimal role in the fraudulent activities. It was emphasized that the petitioner had already spent a significant time in custody and deserved the concession of regular bail. On the other hand, the State counsel contended that the petitioner played a crucial role in facilitating the fraud by registering the firm and opening a bank account, indicating his complicity. Additionally, the petitioner was involved in similar cases, suggesting a pattern of criminal behavior.

After considering the arguments, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's extended period of detention and the fact that he was not the main accused in the case. The Court concluded that further detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the petitioner was granted regular bail upon furnishing bail or surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or relevant magistrate.