2021 (4) TMI 1223 - HC - GST

Seeking enlargement of applicant on Regular Bail - applicant has undergone almost 16 months of incarceration and now prays for the release - HELD THAT - The issue decided in the case of PARESH NATHALAL CHAUHAN VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT 2020 (5) TMI 170 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT where it was held that The loss of ₹ 60 Crores to the public exchequer so far cannot be considered as a small amount. It appears that it is only owing to timely detection of the crime that the loss so far is ₹ 60 Crores; it would have been much-much more in absence of detection of the crime. It is not as if the petitioner stopped at ₹ 60 Crores; in all probability he would have continued the racket in absence of its detection. The present application is filed seeking the same prayer. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is no substantial change in circumstances after the rejection of the earlier application. The aspect of recovery of amount of ₹ 14,10,87,517/- till 17.03.2020 as mentioned in the affidavit dated 08.04.2020 was before the passing of the order dated 05.05.2020 by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.6237 of 2020 - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis:
The applicant filed a successive bail application seeking release in connection with a tax evasion case. The applicant's counsel argued that since the investigation has progressed and a significant amount has been recovered from the applicant, he should be granted bail after spending 16 months in custody. The applicant was arrested under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act. The court noted that a previous bail application was rejected due to the complexity of the case, involving multiple accused and beneficiary firms, with a substantial amount of public money involved. The court expressed concerns about the potential threat to the investigation if the applicant is released, considering the sophisticated nature of the alleged tax evasion scheme and the ongoing scrutiny of 92 beneficiary firms. The court emphasized the premeditated nature of the alleged crime and the significant loss to the public exchequer, highlighting the need to prevent any tampering with evidence or continuation of the illegal activities. The Supreme Court also dismissed a subsequent appeal by the applicant, leading to the current bail application being rejected due to the absence of any substantial change in circumstances. The court concluded that the application lacked merit and dismissed it, upholding the previous decision to deny bail to the applicant in the interest of the ongoing investigation and the seriousness of the alleged offenses.