2023 (8) TMI 975 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of bail - reason to believe or any satisfaction to justify the arrest has been provided or not - 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 ofSTATE 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, it is opined that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The applicant sought release on bail after being rejected by the Sessions Judge, Meerut.

Details of the judgment:
The applicant, represented by counsel, claimed innocence and false implication, highlighting lack of reason for arrest, absence of notice for recovery of GST, and no determination of penalty or taxes as per the Act. The applicant's counsel argued that the offences are compoundable and triable by a Magistrate, citing relevant case law to support the bail application.

The opposite party, through their counsel, opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the allegations but failing to provide contrary material. Concerns were raised about the applicant potentially engaging in similar activities if released on bail.

The court considered various factors while granting bail, including the nature of the accusation, evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused, and potential witness tampering. Citing precedent cases, the court deemed it a fit case for bail, emphasizing the larger public interest and without expressing an opinion on the case's merits.

The court granted bail to the applicant, subject to conditions such as not tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses, appearing before the trial court as required, and refraining from criminal activities. Breach of bail conditions could lead to cancellation, and the trial court was urged to expedite proceedings post-release.

The judgment clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and should not influence the trial court's independent conclusions based on evidence. Procedures for filing and verifying the order were also outlined for compliance.