9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 766 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxSeeking grant of regular bail - evasion of tax under Haryana VAT Act and in light of Section 37 read with Section 38 - power of custodial interrogation - HELD THAT - There is no denial to the fact that the economic offences constitute a separate class of their own, but trite it is that presumption of innocence is one of the bedrocks on which the criminal jurisprudence rests. Time and again, Apex Court has reiterated the need to integrate the right of investigating agencies to have effective interrogation of the accused with the right of liberty of the accused. While dealing extensively with the rights of the accused in the economic offences, Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT held There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code. Keeping in view the facts, without commenting on the merits of the case, the incarceration suffered by the petitioners and the fact that investigation already stands concluded and in view of dictum of law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil's case, the present petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of police authorities under the Haryana VAT Act. 2. Parameters for granting bail in economic offences. 3. Consideration of bail in light of presumption of innocence and right to liberty. 4. Conditions to be imposed for granting bail. Summary: Jurisdiction of Police Authorities: The petitioners argued that the matters relate to tax evasion under the Haryana VAT Act, and under Section 37 read with Section 38, they should not have been booked for offences under the IPC. It was contended that the legislature has excluded the jurisdiction of police authorities and provisions of the IPC, as evidenced by the lack of power for custodial interrogation under the VAT Act, which is a complete code in itself. Reliance was placed on Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5274. Parameters for Granting Bail:The court referred to the parameters established by the Supreme Court in 'State through CBI vs. Amaramani Tripathi, 2005(8) SCC 21', which include considerations such as prima facie evidence, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of punishment, risk of absconding, character of the accused, likelihood of offence repetition, and potential tampering with evidence or witnesses. The coordinate bench in Maninder Sharma's case highlighted the triple test for economic offences: flight risk, evidence tampering, and witness influence. Consideration of Bail in Light of Presumption of Innocence and Right to Liberty:The court emphasized the principle that presumption of innocence is fundamental in criminal jurisprudence. The Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, 2022 AIR (Supreme Court) 3386, stated that economic offences should not be categorically denied bail, and each case must be judged on its own facts. The court also cited Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, which held that both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of punishment should be considered, and that bail should not be denied merely due to the gravity of the offence. Conditions to be Imposed for Granting Bail:The court noted that investigations were concluded, and challans were presented in all cases. Proceedings were stayed by a coordinate bench in a related quashing petition. Given these facts, the court allowed the petitions for bail, ordering the petitioners to be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. Conditions included the surrender of passports, filing undertakings not to change documents or contact details, and informing authorities of any changes in mobile numbers. Nothing in the order should be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
|
