9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 653 - HC - GSTGrant of Interim Bail - discrepancies in the Input Tax Credit - no proof with regard to any realization of the tax credit on the basis of forged documents - HELD THAT - The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another 2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT . Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the Applicant. No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence - It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed subject to conditions imposed.
Issues involved: Bail application under Sections 132(1)(b)(c), 132(1)(i) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Summary: The judgment by Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan, J. addresses the bail application of the applicant who is involved in a criminal case related to discrepancies in Input Tax Credit under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court considered various submissions and arguments from both sides before granting bail to the applicant. Issue 1: Consideration for Bail Application The applicant's bail application was considered in light of the criminal case against him for discrepancies in Input Tax Credit under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court noted the submissions made by both the applicant's counsel and the opposite party no.2. Issue 2: Grounds for Bail The applicant's counsel argued that there is no proof of realization of tax credit based on forged documents and highlighted the applicant's health condition. Reference was made to a previous judgment by the Apex Court to support the applicant's entitlement to bail due to the nature of the offense and absence of criminal history. Issue 3: Opposing Arguments The opposite party no.2 did not dispute the factual matrix of the case but opposed the bail application. However, no exceptional circumstances were presented to warrant denial of bail to the applicant. Issue 4: Justification for Bail The court considered the principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception, emphasizing the need to secure the accused's attendance at trial. It was noted that no evidence was presented to suggest that the applicant would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or misuse bail. Issue 5: Decision and Conditions After evaluating the facts, nature of the offense, and submissions from both sides, the court granted bail to the applicant. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and sureties, along with stringent conditions to ensure compliance and prevent any misuse of bail. Separate Judgement: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
