2023 (1) TMI 675 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of bail - alleged tax evasion already been deposited with the revenue by the recipient(s) - HELD THAT - In present case, the petitioner is in custody since 08.11.2022, investigation as against him is complete, the amount of alleged tax evasion has already been deposited with the revenue by the recipient(s). The bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-Vikas Bajoria S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Bajoria shall be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with afore-mentioned FIR registered at concerned Police Station, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation that he shall comply with all the conditions laid down under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with an offence under Section 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after being arrested in connection with an offence under Section 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed false implication and highlighted that the alleged tax evasion amount had already been deposited by the recipient(s). The petitioner had been in custody since a specific date, with the investigation completed and the charge sheet set to be filed. The petitioner sought release on bail due to the compoundable nature of the offence, the maximum sentence being five years, and completion of investigation. The petitioner cited judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support the bail application.

The respondent opposed the bail application, arguing that the deposition of the evaded tax indicated the petitioner's culpability. The respondent contended that economic offences form a distinct class warranting stringent measures, and the petitioner should not be granted bail. The respondent referred to various judgments to support the dismissal of the bail application.

The Court considered the arguments from both sides and referred to a recent judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case. The Supreme Court judgment emphasized that bail could be granted based on certain considerations, such as completion of investigation, filing of charge sheet, and the nature of evidence likely to be presented. The Court noted that the petitioner had already spent over four months in custody, and the trial process would take time. It was determined that the petitioner should be granted bail with specific conditions, including depositing the passport and complying with trial-related obligations.

In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court, while acknowledging the legal principles cited by the respondent, decided to grant bail to the petitioner. The bail application was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court. Additionally, the petitioner was instructed to deposit any passport with the trial court and seek permission before traveling abroad.