9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 601 - HC - GSTGrant of Regular Bail - fake firms - offences under Sections 132(1)(B), (C), (D), (F), (I), (L) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Keeping in view the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SANDEEP GOYAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2020 (5) TMI 240 - SC ORDER , it is ordered that in case investigation is not completed in terms of aforesaid order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, i.e., within three months from 17.04.2020, petitioner be released on bail by the trial court, subject to its satisfaction. It is further ordered that in case investigation is completed within three moths from the date of the order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, it would be open for the petitioner to move the trial court for bail. In case, any such application is filed by the petitioner, the same be disposed of by the trial court on merits in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.
Issues: Regular bail under Section 439 CrPC for offences under CGST Act, 2017.
Analysis: The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offenses under Sections 132(1)(B), (C), (D), (F), (I), (L) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had been in custody since 03.08.2018. The maximum sentence for the offenses was five years. The respondent opposed the bail petition, citing the dismissal of a similar bail petition by a co-accused, Sandeep Goyal, by the High Court. The Supreme Court had also declined bail to Sandeep Goyal but directed that if the investigation was not completed within three months, he should be released on bail by the trial court with appropriate conditions. The Supreme Court's order dated 17.04.2020 highlighted that the petitioner was accused of creating fake firms and committing fraud amounting to ?74,00,00,000. The additional solicitor general mentioned that the investigation was ongoing, with more fake firms linked to the petitioner being uncovered. Despite some co-accused being granted bail, the petitioner had already served one year and eight months in custody. The Supreme Court ordered that if the investigation was not completed within three months, the petitioner should be released on bail by the trial court with suitable terms. If the investigation concluded within the stipulated time, the petitioner could apply for bail, to be considered by the trial court on its merits. In line with the Supreme Court's directive, the High Court ordered that if the investigation was not completed within three months from 17.04.2020, the petitioner should be released on bail by the trial court. If the investigation concluded within the specified period, the petitioner could move the trial court for bail, which would be decided on its merits according to the law. The petition seeking regular bail was disposed of accordingly, adhering to the Supreme Court's order and ensuring the petitioner's rights were protected within the legal framework.
|
