9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 260 - HC - GSTGrant of concession of regular bail - wrongful availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C 132 (1) B C of HGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 3 years, 2 months and 16 days, similarly situated co-accused have already been granted concession of bail by this Court, and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case, challan stands presented on 28.01.2022 and charges stands framed on 24.05.2022, out of 40 witnesses, 8 PWs have been examined so far which is sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2018 (2) TMI 410 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an exception. To elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in HUSSAINARA KHATOON AND ORS. VERSUS HOME SECRETARY, STATE OF BIHAR, PATNA 1979 (3) TMI 215 - SUPREME COURT . Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction period of the under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in view the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. Reliance can be placed upon the order of this Court rendered in BALJINDER SINGH ALIAS ROCK VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB 2023 (3) TMI 1537 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , wherein, while referring Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the concession of bail. The petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned - Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Allegations of fraud and fake invoicing under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 132(1)(b)(c) of HGST Act, 2017. 3. Petitioner's alleged involvement and incarceration. 4. Principle of presumption of innocence and right to a speedy trial. 5. Consideration of criminal antecedents in granting bail. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Grant of Regular Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.: The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated and was already in jail for another FIR. It was highlighted that co-accused had been granted bail, and the petitioner was not a direct beneficiary of the alleged offenses. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's involvement in other FIRs, suggesting a habitual offender. However, the court noted that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over three years, and the trial's conclusion was not imminent, thus warranting consideration for bail. 2. Allegations of Fraud and Fake Invoicing: The FIR alleged that the petitioner, along with others, was involved in issuing fake invoices to fraudulently avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual supply of goods. The prosecution's case was based on investigations revealing non-existent business activities and fraudulent transactions involving multiple firms. The petitioner was accused of conspiring to defraud the government by utilizing bogus ITC, causing revenue loss to the state and central exchequers. 3. Petitioner's Alleged Involvement and Incarceration: The petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner was not a beneficiary of the fraud and had been in custody for a substantial period, with only a fraction of witnesses examined. The State acknowledged the petitioner's prolonged detention but emphasized his involvement in other FIRs. The court considered the petitioner's extended incarceration and the slow progress of the trial as factors justifying bail. 4. Principle of Presumption of Innocence and Right to a Speedy Trial: The court reiterated the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence, emphasizing that an accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. It referenced the Supreme Court's stance that bail is a general rule, and incarceration is an exception. The court also highlighted the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, noting that prolonged pre-trial detention undermines this constitutional right. 5. Consideration of Criminal Antecedents in Granting Bail: While the State highlighted the petitioner's criminal antecedents, the court emphasized that each case must be evaluated on its own merits. It referenced previous judgments underscoring that the pendency of other cases should not automatically preclude bail, provided the evidence in the current case is independently assessed. The court stressed the importance of a humane approach in considering bail applications, even for those with prior records. Decision: The court directed the release of the petitioner on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. It clarified that the observations made should not influence the merits of the case. The petition was allowed, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the petitioner's rights under the law.
|
