2023 (7) TMI 626 - HC - GST

Rejection of Bail application - arrest without assigning any reason to believe nor any satisfaction to justify arrest - illegal arrest - No notice for recovery of G.S.T. has been issued against the applicant - till date penalty or taxes has not been ascertained as per Act - compoundable offences. HELD THAT - It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR VERSUS BALCHAND @ BALIAY 1977 (9) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT , GUDIKANTI NARASIMHULU AND ORS. VERSUS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 1977 (12) TMI 143 - SUPREME COURT , RAM GOVIND UPADHYAY VERSUS SUDARSHAN SINGH AND ORS. 2002 (3) TMI 945 - SUPREME COURT , PRASANTA KUMAR SARKAR VERSUS ASHIS CHATTERJEE AND ORS. 2010 (10) TMI 1199 - SUPREME COURT and MAHIPAL VERSUS RAJESH KUMAR @ POLIA ANR. 2019 (12) TMI 1461 - SUPREME COURT , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, thus it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed subject to conditions imposed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an offense punishable under Sections 132(1)(I) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The issues include the legality of the applicant's arrest, severity of the alleged offenses, absence of notice for recovery of G.S.T., non-ascertainment of penalty or taxes, nature of the offenses being compoundable and triable by a Magistrate.

Legal Judgment Summary:

Legality of Arrest:
The applicant's counsel argued that the arrest was unjustified as no reason to believe or satisfaction was provided as required by the law. It was contended that the applicant was arrested without proper justification, and no notice for recovery of G.S.T. had been issued against him. The court found that the arrest lacked proper justification, which raised concerns about the legality of the applicant's detention.

Severity of Offenses:
The offenses alleged were punishable with imprisonment up to 5 years. The court considered the seriousness of the allegations and the potential punishment involved in case of conviction. Despite the gravity of the charges, the court had to balance this factor with other considerations in deciding on the bail application.

Nature of Offenses and Trial Venue:
The offenses were deemed compoundable in nature and triable by a Magistrate. This aspect influenced the court's decision regarding the applicant's eligibility for bail. The nature of the offenses and the appropriate trial venue were crucial factors in determining the outcome of the bail application.

Grant of Bail:
After considering various legal precedents and the totality of facts, the court granted bail to the applicant. The court cited relevant judgments to support its decision, emphasizing the need to balance the interests of justice, public welfare, and the rights of the accused. The court imposed specific conditions for the bail, including restrictions on the applicant's behavior and obligations to the trial court.

Conclusion:
The judgment allowed the bail application, directing the release of the applicant upon fulfillment of specified conditions. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the conditions set forth and highlighted that the observations made in the order were limited to the bail application. The trial court was granted the autonomy to make independent determinations based on the evidence presented during the trial proceedings.