2022 (6) TMI 1026 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - second complaint on identical allegations - It is contended that immediately after the petitioner secured bail pursuant to the order dated 18.05.2021, the present case was registered against her and she was again arrested on 18.05.2021 and is in custody till today - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody in this case since 09.12.2020 and though the petitioner had secured bail on 18.05.2021 on a complaint containing identical allegations, the said benefit has been denied by filing a second complaint containing the same allegations. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate with the conditions imposed - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Regular bail application in a case involving multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and other related Acts.
2. Allegations of harassment by GST Authorities due to a second complaint with identical allegations.
3. Denial of benefit of bail despite securing bail in a previous complaint with similar allegations.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought regular bail in a case registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and related Acts. The counsel argued that a previous complaint in 2020 had similar allegations, and the petitioner had been granted bail subject to conditions. However, a subsequent case was filed, leading to the petitioner's arrest and denial of bail. The State reiterated the complaint's contents, claiming differences in the cases despite identical allegations. The petitioner had been in custody since December 2020, despite securing bail earlier.

2. The petitioner contended that the GST Authorities lodged a second complaint with the same allegations, causing harassment. It was highlighted that after obtaining bail in the initial case, a new case was filed, resulting in the petitioner's arrest. The State's reply acknowledged the similarities in allegations but argued that the cases were distinct. The petitioner's argument centered on the authorities' actions amounting to harassment through successive complaints.

3. Despite securing bail previously, the petitioner was denied the benefit in the subsequent case with identical allegations. The court noted the petitioner's continuous custody since December 2020 and the denial of bail despite a previous grant. The judgment allowed the petition, ordering the petitioner's release on regular bail upon fulfilling specified conditions, including a substantial bail bond and restrictions on leaving the country, influencing witnesses, and dealing with properties until the case's conclusion.