9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1016 - DSC - GSTSeeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent/accused - Non-compliance with the directions mentioned in the bail order. Deposit of passport with investigating officer - HELD THAT - On being enquired from the IO about the violation of this condition that if he is having any information with respect to the renewal of old Passport or issuance of any new Passport in the name of the respondent/accused or there being any instances when accused has travelled abroad by using said Passports. The reply to the same has come in negative from the IO. IO has submitted that he has not abled to lay his hand on any such information and he is also not having any details about any such Passport being used by the accused - it cannot be said that there has been any willful concealment from the side of the accused. It is needless to say that no one stops the IO to trace out further evidence in this regard. It is pertinent to mention here that there are no allegations that accused has violated this condition to show any use of such passport. Giving prior intimation to the IO on his mobile phone before leaving the NCR for any purpose - HELD THAT - The violation of this condition has not been disputed by Ld. Defence counsel. It is submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that on one occasion, due to medical urgency in the family of the accused, he left to Raxaul but at the same time, it has also not been disputed by the IO that on several occasions, in compliance to the notice of the IO, respondent/accused has joined the investigation. On the violation of this condition for once only, warning at this stage would be sufficient to the respondent/accused as the present case has not been the case of repeated violation of any such condition. Engagement in any similar offence or temper with any evidences of influence any witness in the present case - HELD THAT - On being enquired from the IO about the destruction of the mobile phone and information contained therein, it is submitted that this instance of destruction of evidence is prior to passing the bail order dated 02.02.2023. Nothing of this sort has surfaced or has been alleged against the respondent/accused after passing the impugned bail order - it is clear that no such condition has been violated from the side of the respondent/accused after the grant of anticipatory bail on 02.02.2023. Co-operation in the investigation and appear before the IO as and when summoned and also appear before the Court when called upon to face inquiry - HELD THAT - On being enquired from the IO about the accused joining the investigation on the above mentioned dates, the IO has admitted that accused has joined the investigation. So when the accused has joined the investigation on several dates and also got recorded his statement, then violation of this condition of non-joining the investigation does not arise and violation of the same has been alleged without any basis. Refund to the Department within 15 days from today - HELD THAT - It appears that there has not been violation of this condition also. Although nothing bars the department to carry out further investigation in this regard and to justify that actually no refund of Rs. 18 crores has been made by the respondent/accused but on perusal of the record produced by the respondent/accused, which has not been disputed by the department and also in view of the averments made by the parties, this court reaches to this conclusion that there is no violation of condition no. 6 also by the respondent/accused. The applicant department has failed to show any cogent and reasonable grounds for cancellation of bail - the present application stands dismissed being not maintainable.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent/accused based on alleged violations of specific conditions. Condition No. 2 - Deposit of Passport: The applicant argued that the accused did not deposit his passport with the Investigating Officer (IO) as directed. The defense counsel explained that the accused's passport had expired in 1998 and was not renewed. The IO confirmed not having any information on a renewed or new passport. The court noted that there was no willful concealment by the accused, and the IO could further investigate. No violation of this condition was found post-bail order. Condition No. 3 - Prior Intimation on Leaving NCR: The accused left NCR without prior intimation to the IO, which was acknowledged. The defense cited a medical urgency as the reason for the departure. The court considered this a one-time violation and warned the accused, noting his compliance with other investigative aspects. Condition No. 4 - No Offense or Witness Influence: Allegations of witness influence were raised by the applicant. The defense clarified that the co-accused being influenced was not a witness but another accused. The accused admitted to destroying evidence before the bail order, but no post-bail violations were reported. Condition No. 5 - Cooperation in Investigation: The applicant claimed the accused did not cooperate or provide necessary information. The defense countered, stating the accused had participated in investigations on multiple dates, which the IO confirmed. The court found no basis for alleging non-cooperation. Condition No. 6 - Refund of Amount to Department: The applicant disputed the accused's claim of refunding Rs. 18 crores, citing discrepancies. The defense presented evidence of the amount being debited against the GST registration and reversed back to the Department. The court concluded that this condition was not violated based on the evidence presented. Legal Precedent: The judgment referenced the principles from Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana regarding bail cancellation, emphasizing the need for substantial grounds. The court found the applicant failed to provide sufficient reasons for bail cancellation. Conclusion: After detailed consideration of each condition and the arguments presented, the court dismissed the application for cancellation of anticipatory bail, deeming it not maintainable. The judgment highlighted the lack of substantial grounds for the requested cancellation.
|
