2023 (8) TMI 1124 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - creation of false and bogus companies for extracting GST amount from the public - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P., and another 2020 (1) TMI 1528 - SUPREME COURT has held that the pendency of several criminal cases against the accused cannot be basis to refuse the prayer of bail. Still further, no doubt, several other criminal cases have been registered against the present petitioner, but that cannot be sole ground to confine the present petitioner in jail for an indefinite period. The bail to a petitioner cannot be denied solely on the ground that several other cases are pending against him, even though, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of bail in the facts of the present case. In the present case also, the petitioner has already undergone more than 01 year and 11 months of the custody and the trial is at an initial stage. Even all the offences are triable by the Court of learned Magistrate and the conclusion of the trial may take considerable time. The present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned subject to the conditions imposed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in a case involving allegations of creating false companies for extracting GST amount, issuing fake bills, and causing a loss to the Department.

Details of the judgment:

Issue 1: Allegations against the petitioner
The FIR alleged that the petitioner was involved in creating false and bogus companies for extracting GST amount from the public, issuing fake bills, and causing a substantial loss to the Department.

Issue 2: Petitioner's defense
The petitioner contended that he had not been specifically named in the case and that the only role attributed to him was registering a firm at the behest of a co-accused. He argued that he should not be held responsible for the actions of the co-accused who caused the loss.

Issue 3: Prosecution's opposition
The State counsel opposed the bail plea, citing the substantial loss caused by the petitioner to the Government Exchequer and his active participation in the alleged crime. However, it was acknowledged that the petitioner had already spent nearly two years in custody.

Judgment and reasoning
The court considered the precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasizing that the pendency of multiple criminal cases should not be the sole basis for denying bail. Despite several cases against the petitioner, the court found that he had already spent a significant time in custody, and the trial was at an initial stage. Therefore, the court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions to ensure his compliance with the legal process.

Conditions of bail
The court ordered the petitioner's release on bail subject to various conditions, including restrictions on influencing witnesses, mandatory court appearances, surrendering passport if any, reporting to the concerned SHO regularly, and potential cancellation of bail if involved in any other criminal activity during the trial.

In conclusion, the court allowed the bail petition, considering the petitioner's time spent in custody, the stage of the trial, and the legal precedents regarding bail applications.