2022 (2) TMI 1158 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Default Bail - bail sought on the ground that the prosecution failed to within the statutorily prescribed period, institute report/challan before the learned trial Judge concerned - HELD THAT - It was imperative for the petitioner, to disclose tangible evidence in display, that he is not possessed of adequate financial resources, and that hence he is disabled, to comply with the modified default bail conditions, as became imposed upon him, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned, as a pre-condition for his availing the benefit of default bail. Prima facie lack of financial empowerment, would also become the relevant factor, in concluding that the conditions imposed are exploitative, oppressive and harsh, and, completely negate the effect, if any, of the indulgence of default bail, as becomes granted to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on instructions meeted to him by the latter, has made a very candid submission, that the impugned modified conditions, as imposed upon the bail petitioner, are oppressive, harsh, and, exploitative, and would ultimately negate the indulgence of default bail, as becomes accorded to him, as he submits that the bail petitioner, is not possessed of financial emplowerments in commensuration to the modified impugned bail conditions, as become imposed upon him, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana - this Court concludes, that the ill sequel thereof would be, that the personal liberty of the bail petitioner would become completely curtailed, merely on account of his inability to fulfil the harsh, oppressive, and, exploitative bail conditions. Consequently, this Court deems it fit to modify the conditions of default bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions meted to him by the latter, made a statement at the bar, that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish personal as well as three surety bonds (of whom two sureties, should be local) comprised in a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate concerned. The above are both reasonable, and, just, and, would make fully efficacious the default bail granted to the petitioner. Obviously hence the other condition(s) as became imposed through the impugned order as made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, upon, the petitioner inasmuch as, his also furnishing FDR/bank guarantee comprising thereins a sum of ₹ 40 lakhs is quashed, and, set aside. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
2. Imposition of bail conditions by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge.
3. Petitioner's challenge to the bail conditions as harsh, oppressive, and exploitative.
4. Arguments regarding the financial incapacity of the petitioner to meet bail conditions.
5. Legal precedents and principles concerning default bail and personal liberty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Default Bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner was accused of offenses under Clause (b), (c), and (l) of Sub Section 1 of Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, punishable under Section 132(1)(i). The Inspector of CGST Commissionerate, Ludhiana, failed to file a report/challan within the statutory period, leading the petitioner to seek default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, granted default bail but imposed stringent conditions.

2. Imposition of Bail Conditions by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge:
The Chief Judicial Magistrate imposed conditions that the petitioner found harsh. The petitioner challenged these conditions before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, who modified them, requiring the petitioner to furnish personal bail bonds of ?40 lakhs each with two sureties in the same amount and a bank guarantee/FDR of ?20 lakhs.

3. Petitioner's Challenge to Bail Conditions:
The petitioner, still aggrieved, filed the instant petition seeking further modification of the bail conditions, arguing they were harsh, oppressive, and exploitative, thus negating the benefit of default bail.

4. Arguments Regarding Financial Incapacity:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the modified conditions were beyond the petitioner's financial capacity, rendering the default bail ineffective. The counsel for the respondent contended that the conditions were neither oppressive nor harsh, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in "Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra."

5. Legal Precedents and Principles:
The court examined the Supreme Court's judgment, emphasizing personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and the statutory right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The judgment highlighted that any further detention beyond the statutory period without filing a challan would violate Article 21. The court noted that the Supreme Court did not address the issue of harsh bail conditions in the cited case.

Conclusion:
The court found that the petitioner had not provided tangible evidence of financial incapacity but accepted the counsel's statement regarding the petitioner's inability to meet the bail conditions. The court concluded that the conditions were harsh, oppressive, and exploitative, thus negating the benefit of default bail. The court deemed it fit to modify the conditions, requiring the petitioner to furnish personal and three surety bonds of ?10 lakhs each, with two sureties being local. The condition of furnishing an FDR/bank guarantee of ?40 lakhs was quashed.

Disposition:
The petition was disposed of with the modified conditions, and any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.