9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 1307 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of custodial bail - accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents - illegal mining - revenue loss - HELD THAT - In the present case, the petitioner chose to come straightway to this Court and has given reasons for that in para no. 3 of petition. Reasons for filing petition before this Court is that during the pendency of the quashing petition when petitioner prayed for stay on proceeding/investigation, this Court permitted him to file petition under Section 438 CrPC. Given the explanation, there would be no justification to dismiss the present petition only on the grounds that he has forfeited one of his rights to file a petition firstly to the Sessions Court. In fact by straightway coming to this Court any accused would lose one of the statutory right of getting their bail petition adjudicated by the Sessions Court first. In this process such an accused, who comes straightway to this Court in exercise of the concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC would be deprived of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If an accused first files a bail petition before the Sessions Court and the same is rejected they still have right to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 CrPC which is also concurrent jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, in entirety it is such an accused, who would be loser by first coming to the High Court under Section 439 CrPC. Given above, the petitioner coming and filing a petition straightway to this Court is also not a ground not to entertain the same or to continue his detention just for these technical reasons. An analysis of above said submissions would lead to the outcome that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 11.04.2024. His remand is judicial not police. Thus, his current custody in a prison is not going to render any help to the investigator at this stage. Simply because, the custody is from 11.04.2024 i.e. only for 15 days is not a ground to deny bail to the petitioner. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab 1980 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT , a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. Petitioner is granted bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Custodial Bail 2. Allegations of Illegal Mining and Revenue Loss 3. Prima Facie Case and Pre-trial Incarceration 4. Jurisdiction and Concurrent Jurisdiction 5. Conditions for Granting Bail Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Custodial Bail: The petitioner, in custody since 11.04.2024, sought bail under Section 439 CrPC. The petitioner declared no criminal antecedents and filed the petition directly before the High Court, citing an earlier order dated 08.04.2024 from the same court. 2. Allegations of Illegal Mining and Revenue Loss: The allegations stem from an FIR registered on 25.08.2022, implicating the petitioner in illegal mining activities and causing a revenue loss of approximately Rs. 35 Crores to the Government of Haryana. The investigation revealed that M/s Tirupati Roadways extracted 17,66,079.68 MT of material, 5-6 times more than the permissible limit, without issuing proper bills for GST and royalty. 3. Prima Facie Case and Pre-trial Incarceration: The court considered the pre-trial custody and the prima facie nature of the allegations. The petitioner argued that the extra excavation allegations were baseless, attributing discrepancies to the inclusion of mud/clay and other impurities. The court noted that the petitioner's custodial interrogation was not required at this stage and emphasized the principle of "bail, not jail," citing various Supreme Court judgments, including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav. 4. Jurisdiction and Concurrent Jurisdiction: The court addressed the petitioner's choice to file the bail petition directly before the High Court. It clarified that while concurrent jurisdiction exists under Section 439 CrPC, the petitioner forfeited the right to first approach the Sessions Court. The court held that this choice should not be a ground to dismiss the petition, as it would deprive the petitioner of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. Conditions for Granting Bail: The court granted bail, subject to stringent conditions to mitigate risks of influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, or intimidating witnesses. The petitioner was required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and one surety of Rs. 25,000 or provide a fixed deposit of Rs. 10,000. Additional conditions included limiting the petitioner to one prepaid SIM card, not influencing witnesses, and adhering to court appearances. The court emphasized the importance of balancing the liberty of the accused with the necessity of a fair trial, referencing judgments like Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi. Conclusion: The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail with specific conditions to ensure compliance and prevent any adverse impact on the investigation or trial. The court highlighted the need for judicial discretion in bail matters, ensuring conditions are proportional and do not infringe on the accused's rights. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
|
