9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 1385 - HC - GSTSeeking cancellation of bail granted in favour of the respondent, invoking Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. - Whether the State has made out any grounds for cancellation of bail granted in favour of the respondent? - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the respondent was apprehended, subjected to interrogation, later he was enlarged on bail subject to conditions. Initially, while filing the petition, it is not the contention of the petitioner that the respondent has violated any of the conditions imposed on him, but later additional grounds were pleaded to contend that there is violation of conditions. Simply because the respondent has not produced the documents that are called for by the Investigating Officer, it will not amount to violation of any of the conditions imposed while granting bail. If the petitioner is of the opinion that certain documents are withheld by the respondent deliberately or it is of the opinion that concocted documents are relied on by the respondent, it can still proceed further by making such grounds against the respondent to speed up the investigation and pass the assessment order. It is well settled proposition of law that denying bail to the accused is entirely different from cancellation of bail already granted by the Court as it amounts to withdrawing the liberty granted in favour of the accused which requires strong grounds. No such strong grounds are made out to seek cancellation of bail which is already granted. The Court has taken into consideration the facts of the case and has assigned valid reasons for enlarging the respondent on bail - there are no compelling reason for cancellation of bail granted in favour of the respondent - Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. 2. Allegation of commission of an offense under Section 132(1)(i) of Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act (KGST Act). 3. Challenge to the bail order granted by the Sessions Court. 4. Compliance with bail conditions and furnishing of necessary information by the respondent. 5. Grounds for cancellation of bail by the State. Analysis: 1. The State filed a petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. The respondent was apprehended for an offense under Section 132(1)(i) of the KGST Act. The Magistrate rejected the bail plea, but the Sessions Court granted bail subject to conditions, which the State challenged. 2. The State argued that the Sessions Judge did not consider the materials on record and the bail order was perverse. It was alleged that the respondent did not comply with specific bail conditions, failed to furnish necessary information to the Investigating Officer, and engaged in the fabrication of documents post-bail, violating the conditions. 3. The respondent's counsel contended that the bail order was reasoned and in compliance with KGST Act provisions, as required particulars were uploaded online. The respondent's non-cooperation was disputed, citing lack of clarity on information needed by the Investigating Officer. The respondent sought dismissal of the petition due to the absence of grounds for bail cancellation. 4. The main issue for consideration was whether the State presented sufficient grounds for bail cancellation. The Court noted the petitioner's contentions on non-production of documents by the respondent and the alleged violation of bail conditions. However, it emphasized that the respondent uploaded necessary information online, and any additional documents could be requested. The Court highlighted that non-production of specific documents during investigation did not automatically constitute a bail condition violation. 5. Referring to a Supreme Court case, the State argued for bail cancellation based on relevant factors not considered during bail grant. However, the Court differentiated between denying bail and canceling granted bail, requiring strong grounds for the latter. It found no compelling reason to cancel bail, as the Sessions Judge had validly considered the case facts and reasons for bail grant. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the criminal petition, finding no sufficient grounds for canceling the bail granted to the respondent.
|
