2022 (3) TMI 1610 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of regular bail - grounds of parity claimed - petitioner submits that on similar set of allegations, four FIRs were registered against the petitioner and it is already noticed in the aforesaid order that he has already been granted regular bail in two cases as well as in FIR No.259 - HELD THAT - This petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing his bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned. Petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues: Grant of regular bail in FIR under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B & 201

In this judgment, the petitioner sought regular bail in an FIR under various IPC sections. The petitioner was implicated in a case involving fraudulent activities related to input tax credit and evasion of taxes. The FIR alleged that the petitioner, along with others, created a fake firm and issued invoices without actual movement of goods, causing a substantial loss to the public exchequer. The prosecution argued that the petitioner's involvement was significant, as evidenced by the use of his mobile phone in creating the fraudulent scheme. The State Counsel opposed bail, emphasizing the gravity of the offenses and the substantial loss incurred. The defense contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated, not directly involved in the offenses, and unaware of the fraudulent activities. The defense highlighted that the petitioner had been granted bail in similar cases previously. The court considered the nature of the accusations, the evidence, the petitioner's custody period, and the likelihood of a prolonged trial due to COVID-19 restrictions. The court granted the petitioner regular bail, noting that all offenses were triable by a Judicial Magistrate First Class and without expressing any opinion on the case's merits. The court directed the petitioner's release on bail upon furnishing necessary bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The judgment highlighted the multiple FIRs against the petitioner and the previous grants of bail in similar cases, indicating a pattern of allegations related to GST evasion using the complainant's mobile phone. The court acknowledged the petitioner's extended custody period and the pending trial, leading to the decision to grant bail without delving into the case's merits.