9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 132 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxGrant of Regular Bail - commiting fraud with the intention of not paying the tax with the support of proper planning by showing the false inter state sales for on bogus documents and causing the loss to tax department by claiming refund - HELD THAT - The object of the bail is to secure the presence of the accused at the trial only. It is also observed that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive and deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. Hon ble the Supreme Court has observed in catena of judgments that when a person is punished by denial of bail in respect of any matter upon which he has not been convicted, it would be contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution except in cases where there is reason to believe that he may influence the witnesses. In GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB 1980 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT , Hon ble the Supreme Court has observed as under - Judges have to decide cases as they come before them, mindful of the need to keep passions and prejudices out of their decisions. The Court has also observed that in which case bail should be granted and in which case it should be refused is a matter of discretion. Admittedly, the petitioner is a senior citizen and is in custody since 22.08.2023. The challan has already been presented against the petitioner and his co-accused. 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.
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C. 2. Delay in FIR registration. 3. Petitioner's involvement and responsibility. 4. Legal principles governing bail. Summary: 1. Grant of Regular Bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C.: The petitioner sought regular bail in case FIR No. 553 dated 30.07.2016, registered under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC, with Sections 409, 201, and 120-B IPC added later. The petitioner argued that he is a senior citizen, aged about 70 years, and retired as Joint Commissioner Excise and Taxation, Haryana, in 2014, with no complaints against him except the current FIR and 21 similar FIRs. The court noted that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at trial and not to punish or preventively detain. 2. Delay in FIR Registration: The petitioner contended that the FIR was registered after a delay of about 8 years, suggesting that the prosecution used this time to fabricate a false version. The court acknowledged this delay but emphasized the need to consider the cumulative effect of all circumstances in deciding bail. 3. Petitioner's Involvement and Responsibility: The petitioner's counsel argued that all refunds during the petitioner's tenure as Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner were approved by Mr. D.P. Beniwal, E.T.O., and that the petitioner was only required to approve refunds based on the E.T.O.'s recommendations. The counsel also highlighted the lack of documentary evidence against the petitioner and asserted that the police failed to produce any evidence implicating him in the case. The State counsel opposed the bail, arguing that the petitioner committed fraud in collusion with co-accused and could influence prosecution witnesses. 4. Legal Principles Governing Bail: The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments, including Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that bail should not be withheld as punishment and should be granted unless there is a reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with evidence or fleeing justice. The court reiterated that personal liberty is a precious constitutional value and that pre-conviction detention should be avoided unless necessary to secure attendance at trial. Conclusion: The court observed that the petitioner is a senior citizen in custody since 22.08.2023, and the challan has already been presented. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner to be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
|
