9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 112 - HC - GSTGrant of third (interim) bail application - It is contended that in any of the reports, it is not mentioned that petitioner s father needs treatment - offence under Sections 132(1), (b), (c), (f), (g), (k), (i) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with 69 of CGST Act - HELD THAT - Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the Union of India, the grant third (interim) bail application, cannot be granted. Third (interim) bail application dismissed.
Issues:
- Third (interim) bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. - Offence under Sections 132(1), (b), (c), (f), (g), (k), (i) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with 69 of CGST Act - Health condition of petitioner's father as grounds for bail - Opposition by counsel for the Union of India - Dismissal of the third (interim) bail application Analysis: The judgment pertains to a third (interim) bail application filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner. The criminal complaint in question, No. 34/2019, is pending before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur Metropolitan, for an offence under Sections 132(1), (b), (c), (f), (g), (k), (i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 69 of the CGST Act. The alleged offences are punishable under Sections 132(1)(i)(iv) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 132(5) of the CGST Act. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner's father is suffering from various ailments and requires treatment in a hospital. However, the counsel for the Union of India opposed the third (interim) bail application, stating that there is no mention in any reports that the petitioner's father needs treatment. The judge, after considering the contentions of both sides, decided not to grant the third (interim) bail application based on the arguments presented by the Union of India's counsel. Consequently, the third (interim) bail application was dismissed by the court. The decision highlights the importance of substantial grounds and evidence when seeking bail, especially in cases involving serious offences. The judgment underscores the judicial discretion exercised by the court in evaluating bail applications and the necessity for compelling reasons to justify interim bail, particularly when opposed by the prosecution.
|
