9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 1506 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of regular bail - petitioner contends that the petitioner was not named in the FIR nor any incriminating evidence was collected against him during the course of investigation - admissible evidence or not - HELD THAT - In the present case, the petitioner was arrested on 21.01.2021 and is in custody since then. The offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been presented before the competent Court. Thus, no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars, in the present case. Moreover, the pendency of the other criminal cases is no ground to reject the bail application of the petitioner as he has been able to make out a case for grant of bail in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P., and another 2020 (1) TMI 1528 - SUPREME COURT has held that the pendency of several criminal cases against the accused cannot be the basis to refuse the prayer of bail. Similar observations have been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P., and another 2012 (1) TMI 407 - SUPREME COURT . 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 - Petition allowed.
Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in case of FIR registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 132(1)B and C of GST Act, 2017. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition seeking regular bail in a case registered under various sections of the IPC and the GST Act. The FIR was based on a complaint from the Excise Taxation Officer regarding alleged tax evasion and fraud by the petitioner's firm. The petitioner argued that he was not directly implicated in the FIR and no incriminating evidence was found against him during the investigation. It was also highlighted that the final report had already been submitted to the trial court, and the petitioner had been in custody for over three years. The petitioner contended that all offenses were triable by a Magistrate, and therefore, he should be granted bail. The State counsel opposed the bail plea, citing 17 other similar FIRs against the petitioner as grounds for denial. However, the court considered the circumstances and legal precedents. The court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since his arrest in January 2021, and the final report had been presented. The court emphasized that the pendency of other criminal cases should not automatically lead to the rejection of a bail application. Citing legal precedents, the court held that the petitioner had made a case for bail in the present circumstances. In the final analysis, the court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner's release on bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court regarding bail bonds or surety bonds. The court considered the triable nature of the offenses, the duration of custody, and legal principles regarding bail applications despite the pendency of other criminal cases.
|
