Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2021 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 888 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of Regular Bail - fixing of the amount of the bond for bail - wrongful loss of ₹ 15.91 crores to the complainant-Directorate General of GST Intelligence - Section 132(1)(b) of Central Goods Services Act, 2017 (for short 'CGST Act, 2017), punishable under sub-clause(i) of Section 132(1) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Chapter XXXIII of Code of Criminal Procedure contains the provisions relating to bail and bonds and Section 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. deal with the regular bail of undertrial. The concession of regular bail liberates the undertrial from detention in prison during the pendency of the trial subject to fulfilling the conditions including execution of personal bond with or without sureties. Ordinarily, the Court before granting regular bail to the accused considers various factors like nature and gravity of the alleged crime, custodial period of the accused, stage of the trial, the alleged role/participation of the accused in the alleged offence and other attending circumstances. At the time of release, the accused is conditioned to execute bonds and furnish surety and the amount of bond is fixed by the Court/Officer granting bail to the accused and the object of such conditions is to ensure that the accused returns to stand trial. Of course, there cannot be a straitjacket formula to fix the amount of the bond, but it should not be exorbitant to take it beyond the means of the accused, thereby frustrating the relief of bail, as it would amount to giving relief with one hand, but taking away with the other. Perhaps for this reason, Section 440 Cr.P.C. contemplates that the amount of every bond executed under this Chapter shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive. This Court does not find any merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the complainant as the petitioner cannot be allowed to remain in jail indefinitely, because it would mean punishment to the accused before charges against him are even explained. The maximum sentence for the alleged offence in the present case is Five years, whereas the petitioner has already undergone a period of more than 11 months. Since the petitioner is yet to execute the bond and furnish the sureties, the condition directing the accused to furnish the bank guarantee/FDR is also not sustainable, as normally, such a condition can be imposed in lieu of executing the bond. This Court is mindful of the fact that admittedly, in the present case, till date no complaint/charge-sheet has been filed by the respondent and despite the concession of bail extended to the petitioner on 24.2.2021, he continues to be in prison. At this juncture, it is needless to observe that every accused is presumed to be innocent till the prosecution brings home the guilt of the accused, and further the grant of bail is a general rule, whereas denial is an exception. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 15.7.2021 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, calls for further modification. The petition succeeds and it is ordered that the accused shall be released on bail subject to his executing bond of ₹ 10 lakhs and two sureties of the like amount, and further the other condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs is set aside - Petition allowed.
Issues:
Accused challenging the conditions of bail bond and surety bond set by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, and later modified by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Conditions of Bail Bond and Surety Bond The petitioner, an accused under Section 132(1)(b) of CGST Act, 2017, was released on regular bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. but faced stringent conditions including executing bail bonds/surety bonds. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, directed him to execute bonds amounting to ?1.10 crores and two sureties of like amount, along with other conditions. The Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, later modified these conditions, reducing the bond amount to ?30 lakhs each, with two sureties of the same amount, and a bank guarantee of ?20 lakhs. The petitioner found even these modified conditions unjust and beyond his means, leading to this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Issue 2: Justification of Modified Conditions The respondent-complainant argued that the modified conditions were justified due to the nature of the economic offence involving a substantial amount of ?15.91 crores. The imposition of bail bond and surety bond for ?30 lakhs each was deemed necessary to ensure the accused's presence and safeguard the complainant's interest. The need for a bank guarantee was also supported to secure potential recovery. Relevant judgments were cited to support this argument. Issue 3: Judicial Principles and Discretion in Granting Bail The Court highlighted the discretionary nature of granting regular bail to accused undertrials, considering factors like the alleged crime's nature, trial stage, and accused's role. Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. provides the right to seek bail if investigation isn't concluded within a stipulated time. The bond amount should be reasonable, not exceeding the accused's means, as per Section 440 Cr.P.C. The accused's right to bail and presumption of innocence were emphasized. Conclusion: The Court found the petitioner's continued detention unjust, especially considering the absence of a filed complaint/charge-sheet within the statutory period. The accused's prolonged custody before explaining charges was deemed unfair. The modified conditions were deemed excessive, and the order dated 15.7.2021 was further modified. The accused was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a bond of ?10 lakhs and two sureties of the same amount, while setting aside the bank guarantee condition of ?20 lakhs.
|