9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 1288 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of bail - offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - it is submitted that the applicant has been arrested without assigning any reason to believe nor any satisfaction to justified his arrest as provided in the Code - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR VERSUS BALCHAND @ BALIAY 1977 (9) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT , GUDIKANTI NARASIMHULU AND ORS. VERSUS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 1977 (12) TMI 143 - SUPREME COURT , RAM GOVIND UPADHYAY VERSUS SUDARSHAN SINGH AND ORS. 2002 (3) TMI 945 - SUPREME COURT , PRASANTA KUMAR SARKAR VERSUS ASHIS CHATTERJEE AND ORS. 2010 (10) TMI 1199 - SUPREME COURT and MAHIPAL VERSUS RAJESH KUMAR @ POLIA ANR. 2019 (12) TMI 1461 - SUPREME COURT , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, it is opined that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed, subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.
Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences under Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Detailed Analysis: Nature of Offences: The bail application was filed for offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The applicant, Vijay Kumar, sought bail after his application was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Meerut. The applicant claimed innocence and argued that he was falsely implicated in the case. It was highlighted that the offences were compoundable in nature and triable by a Magistrate. The applicant had been in jail since 19.09.2023. Arguments for Bail: The applicant's counsel contended that the arrest lacked justification as no reason was provided for the arrest as required by law. It was also asserted that no notice for recovery of G.S.T. had been issued against the applicant, and penalties or taxes had not been ascertained per the Act. The counsel emphasized the applicant's clean record, except for one previous case, and assured that the applicant would not misuse bail if granted. Opposition to Bail: The counsel for the D.G.G.I opposed the bail application, arguing that the allegations were serious. However, no substantial material was presented to counter the applicant's claims. Concern was raised that the applicant might engage in similar activities if released on bail. Court's Decision: The court, after evaluating the facts and considering various legal precedents, including judgments from the Apex Court, granted bail to the applicant. The court emphasized the need to balance the nature of the accusation, evidence, severity of punishment, the accused's character, and the likelihood of witness tampering. The court imposed specific conditions for bail, including restrictions on influencing witnesses and engaging in criminal activities post-release. Conditions of Bail: The court ordered the release of Vijay Kumar on bail subject to several conditions, such as not intimidating witnesses, appearing before the trial court as required, and refraining from criminal activities. Breach of these conditions could lead to bail cancellation. The trial court was urged to expedite the trial process after the applicant's release. Final Remarks: The court clarified that the observations made in the bail order were limited to the purpose of the application and should not be construed as a judgment on the case's merits. The trial court was granted the authority to independently assess the evidence presented during the trial. Additionally, procedural requirements for filing and verifying the bail order were specified to ensure authenticity.
|
