2023 (11) TMI 207 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - right of police officer to investigate the offence under the GST Act - requirement of custodial interrogation - evasion of GST - HELD THAT - Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Hon ble Apex Court on the point. It appears that evasion of CGST / GST in connection with by preparing forged bill of petcoke is levelled against the accused persons and in this regard complaint has been filed. Going through the record and at the various stage, it appears that accused are pointing the figures towards each other and shift the blame to each other and the owner put the blame on the present accused, who is only a casual employee as he is concerned with only his wage at the end of the day. Considering the fact that actual beneficiary of said entire alleged offence is only may be considered only owner. However, stand taken on the part of the Investigating Officer appeared very selective. The present application is allowed by directing that in the event of applicant herein being arrested in connection with the FIR No. 11192050220242 of 2022 registered with Sanand Police Station, Dist. Ahmedabad, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount and on the conditions imposed.

Summary

Issues involved: Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with FIR for offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code.

Summary:
1. The applicant, a casual helper, seeks anticipatory bail, claiming innocence and willingness to cooperate in the investigation. He argues that he is falsely implicated and has not benefited from the alleged offences. He requests bail on grounds of parity with co-accused who have been granted bail.

2. The State opposes anticipatory bail, citing the gravity of the offence and the applicant's alleged active role in the crime. It argues for custodial interrogation due to the preliminary stage of the investigation.

3. The Court considers various factors including the nature of allegations, willingness of the applicant to cooperate, lack of necessity for recovery, and the possibility of custodial interrogation. It mentions the Law of parity in deciding in favor of the applicant.

4. The Court notes discrepancies in the investigation, pointing out selective blame-shifting among the accused and the need for a fair investigation. It refers to previous legal precedents to support its decision to grant anticipatory bail.

5. The application for anticipatory bail is allowed with specific conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, attendance at the Police Station, and restrictions on travel. The Investigating Officer retains the right to apply for remand if necessary.

6. The Court clarifies that observations made during the bail order should not influence the Trial Court proceedings. The rule is made absolute, and the application is disposed of with direct service permitted to relevant authorities.