2024 (10) TMI 1533 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of bail - double jeopardy - main argument of the applicant is with respect to double jeopardy as the applicant has already been released on bail in the offence under CGST Act and the present case involves the same offence, therefore, detention of the applicant in jail would amount punishing him for the second time for the same offence - HELD THAT - It would be appropriate to understand the legal principle of double jeopardy which prevents an individual from being prosecuted twice for the same offence after being acquitted or convicted. It is designed to protect individual/person from risk of being subjected to multiple prosecution or punishment for the same crime. This principle exists in many legal systems including that in India. The key aspect of double jeopardy includes once same offence, i.e. the rule applies only if the second prosecution is for the same offence as the first. Secondly, final verdict, i.e. double jeopardy protection applies once there is final judgement (either conviction or acquittal). The purpose is to ensure fairness and prevent abuse of law. In the present case, where the present first information report has been lodged for the offence under IPC and the charge sheet has been submitted after investigation collecting material from the GST department also, the complaint under CGST Act does not involve the same offence, therefore, the argument as placed by learned counsel for the applicant has no legs to stands. In the facts of the present case, the involvement, knowledge and actions following the deposit determines that the applicant was involved in respect of transactions which he had with fake GST firms which were registered by using PAN Card and Aadhaar Card of the informant - the illegal profits as made by the fake GST firms registered on the basis of PAN and Aadhaar Cards of the informant, were made to appear legitimate by moving money / funds to the Bank accounts of others, may be company or firm or relatives' accounts. The present case relates to economic offences. Such offence like large scale fraud, money laundering and corruption, are often viewed seriously because they affect the economic fabric of the society. The Courts may deny bail in such cases especially if the accused holds a position of influence or power. In the present case, money trail of crores, which affects the society at large scale, is involved which started from registration of fake firms by using Aadhaar and PAN Cards of the informant who had not applied for such registration. From the report also it is clear that the discharge application of one of the accused has been rejected and it shows that the charges are proved and once on the basis of material collected chargesheet has been submitted, discharge is rejected, the case of bail is not made out in economic offence where money trail of crores has been found which is a result of registration of fake firms. Offence under the IPC is made out and such accused cannot be dealt with easy hands. The applicant is also chargesheeted hence to be dealt with the same rod. The Apex Court has, in the case of P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 2019 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT , held that precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have bearing on principle and the consideration will have to be on case-to- case basis on facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial. This is not a fit case for granting bail - the bail applications preferred by the applicant Sanjay Dhingra are rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Double Jeopardy
2. Involvement in Economic Offences
3. Bail Considerations

Detailed Analysis:

1. Double Jeopardy:

The applicant contended that being prosecuted under the CGST Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the same set of facts would amount to double jeopardy. The legal principle of double jeopardy is designed to prevent an individual from being prosecuted twice for the same offence after acquittal or conviction. The court clarified that the principle applies only if the second prosecution is for the same offence as the first, and there is a final judgment. In this case, the applicant was released on bail under the CGST Act, which does not equate to acquittal. The IPC charges are distinct from those under the GST Act, thus the principle of double jeopardy does not apply.

2. Involvement in Economic Offences:

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in a large-scale fraud involving the registration of fake GST firms using the PAN and Aadhaar cards of unsuspecting individuals. This fraudulent activity led to the illegal claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to crores of rupees. The investigation revealed that the applicant, along with others, orchestrated a scheme involving fake transactions and companies to siphon off government funds. The court highlighted the severity of economic offences, which involve deep-rooted conspiracies and significant loss to public funds, posing a threat to the financial health of the country.

3. Bail Considerations:

The court emphasized that while the principle "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" is fundamental, it is subject to exceptions, particularly in cases involving economic offences. The factors considered in denying bail included the nature and gravity of the offence, potential flight risk, risk of tampering with evidence, and the larger interest of the public. The court noted that economic offences are viewed seriously due to their impact on society and the economy. The applicant's role in the alleged offences, the money trail, and the involvement of multiple accused in an organized crime led the court to conclude that granting bail was not appropriate.

The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments that outline the considerations for granting bail, particularly in economic offences. These include the nature of accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused, and potential impact on the judicial process. The court concluded that the applicant's involvement in the alleged offences and the ongoing investigation justified the denial of bail.

Conclusion:

The bail applications were rejected based on the distinct nature of the IPC charges, the seriousness of the economic offences, and the potential risks associated with granting bail. The court found no merit in the argument of double jeopardy and emphasized the need for a cautious approach in cases involving significant financial fraud.