2021 (7) TMI 1254 - HC - GST

Cancellation of bail granted - allegations of tempering of evidence and influencing the witnesses - fake and non-existing firm - HELD THAT - It is trite law that considerations relevant at the time of grant of bail are different than the considerations at the time of cancellation of bail after the accused has remained in custody. Admittedly, the investigation had started in the year 2018 and was continuing when the petitioner was arrested on 9th February, 2021 and was granted bail on 9th March, 2021 - It may be noted that the petitioner was already in custody and despite having been granted bail on 9th March, 2021 till date complaint has not been filed and in case the petitioner was in custody in the event of the complaint not being filed in 60 days, he would have been entitled to default bail. The finding of the learned CMM was that the investigation qua the petitioner was almost complete. There is no averment of the respondent that any further recovery is required to be made from the petitioner. In case other offenders are evading arrest, the same cannot be a ground to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. Till the next date of hearing, the operation of the impugned order dated 17th July, 2021 is stayed and the NBWs issued against the petitioner are kept in abeyance - List on 7th September, 2021.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of bail cancellation order by Additional Sessions Judge.
2. Allegations of tempering evidence and influencing witnesses.
3. Considerations for grant and cancellation of bail.
4. Status of investigation and completion of complaint filing.
5. Grounds for cancellation of bail by the learned ASJ.
6. Relevance of investigation stage and petitioner's custody duration.
7. Contrary statements before DRI and GST departments.
8. Entitlement to default bail if complaint not filed within 60 days.

Issue 1: Stay of Bail Cancellation Order
The petitioner sought a stay on the order dated 17th July, 2021, by the Additional Sessions Judge canceling the bail granted earlier by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner argued that the cancellation was based on vague allegations of evidence tampering and witness influence, without substantial evidence to support such claims.

Issue 2: Allegations of Tampering Evidence and Influencing Witnesses
The respondent contended that the petitioner admitted to fraudulent activities, including owning a fake firm and evading taxes. The respondent alleged that the petitioner misled authorities, committed socio-economic offenses, and had the potential to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses. The respondent emphasized the seriousness of the accusations and the ongoing investigation to gather corroborative evidence.

Issue 3: Considerations for Grant and Cancellation of Bail
The Court noted that the considerations for granting bail differ from those for canceling it after the accused has been in custody. Despite the investigation starting in 2018 and ongoing, the respondent had not completed the investigation by the time of the petitioner's arrest and subsequent bail. The delay in filing a complaint raised concerns about the petitioner's entitlement to default bail if the complaint was not filed within 60 days.

Issue 4: Grounds for Cancellation of Bail by the Learned ASJ
The ASJ canceled the bail based on the petitioner's dubious conduct, contradictory statements before different departments, and the belief that the petitioner was misleading the investigation and influencing witnesses. The ASJ considered the seriousness of the accusations and the ongoing investigation as reasons to revoke the bail.

Issue 5: Relevance of Investigation Stage and Petitioner's Custody Duration
The Court highlighted that the investigation was not complete, and the petitioner had been in custody before being granted bail. The fact that the petitioner did not join the investigation before or after the lockdown did not warrant bail cancellation, as the petitioner had already spent time in custody and the necessary investigations had been conducted.

Issue 6: Contrary Statements Before DRI and GST Departments
The Court noted that giving contradictory statements before different departments did not automatically imply witness influence post-bail. The petitioner's actions before and after bail were scrutinized, with the Court emphasizing the need for substantial evidence to prove witness tampering.

Issue 7: Entitlement to Default Bail
The Court observed that the petitioner could be entitled to default bail if the complaint was not filed within 60 days of arrest. The delay in filing the complaint raised concerns about the petitioner's rights and the necessity of completing the investigation promptly.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the judgment, outlining the arguments presented by both parties and the Court's reasoning behind the decision to stay the bail cancellation order.