9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 799 - HC - GSTGrant of Regular Bail - availing irregular credit - petitioner was the part of the gang, which was engaged in operating a number of fake entities/firms - HELD THAT - The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 08.08.2023 and is in custody for the last about 07 months. Even though, the allegations levelled against the petitioner points towards the seriousness of the charge, however, the petitioner cannot be ordered to be incarcerated for an indefinite period. In fact, all the allegations levelled by the complainant are yet to be adjudicated by the trial Court during the course of trial and further custody of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned - Petition allowed.
Issues involved: Bail application u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences u/s 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of GGST Act 2017 read with Section 20 of IGST Act 2017.
The petitioner filed a bail application u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking release in a case registered by Directorate General of GST Intelligence for offences u/s 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of GGST Act 2017 read with Section 20 of IGST Act 2017. The petitioner argued that he was not directly involved in the alleged firm, and the documents implicating him were fabricated. He emphasized that the petitioner had cooperated during the inquiry, and his continued custody was unnecessary as the offences were triable by a Magistrate. The petitioner had been in custody for about 7 months since his arrest on 08.08.2023, and the allegations were yet to be proven in trial. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the charges but granted bail, stating that continued custody served no useful purpose pending trial. The respondent opposed the bail application, alleging the petitioner's involvement in a gang operating fake entities/firms. It was revealed during inquiry that the firm in question had engaged in fraudulent activities, including availing and utilizing ITC from cancelled suppliers, showing bogus sales, and passing ITC to numerous recipients. The respondent argued that the petitioner and his co-accused were part of this operation. In conclusion, the court allowed the bail application without delving into the merits of the case, ordering the petitioner's release upon furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned.
|
