2023 (8) TMI 928 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of bail - reason to believe or any satisfaction to justify the arrest has been given or not - no notice for recovery of GST issued - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR VERSUS BALCHAND @ BALIAY 1977 (9) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT , Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh 1977 (12) TMI 143 - SUPREME COURT , RAM GOVIND UPADHYAY VERSUS SUDARSHAN SINGH AND ORS. 2002 (3) TMI 945 - SUPREME COURT , PRASANTA KUMAR SARKAR VERSUS ASHIS CHATTERJEE AND ORS. 2010 (10) TMI 1199 - SUPREME COURT and MAHIPAL VERSUS RAJESH KUMAR @ POLIA ANR. 2019 (12) TMI 1461 - SUPREME COURT , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, it is held that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Let applicant, Rajnish Jain be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences under Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

The judgment pertains to a bail application filed on behalf of an applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking release on bail in a case involving offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(b) & (c) read with Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The applicant had been arrested without proper justification as per the Act, and it was argued that no notice for recovery of G.S.T. had been issued against him. The applicant had been in custody since a specific date, and it was contended that the offences were compoundable in nature and triable by a Magistrate. The applicant's counsel highlighted that a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of the Court in a previous case, citing relevant legal precedent to support the bail application.

The Court observed that the nature of the accusations, evidence, severity of potential punishment, the accused's character, and other relevant circumstances must be considered while granting bail. Referring to various legal precedents, the Court found it to be a fit case for granting bail, emphasizing the larger interest of the public and the State. The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and sureties, subject to specific conditions aimed at ensuring his compliance with the legal process and preventing interference with witnesses or evidence.

The Court made it clear that the observations in the order were limited to the bail application and should not be construed as an opinion on the case's merits, allowing the trial court to independently assess the evidence. The order also mandated the filing of a computer-generated copy of the order from the official website of the High Court Allahabad, along with identity proof, to be verified by the concerned authorities for authenticity. The trial court was urged to expedite the trial proceedings after the applicant's release, barring any legal obstacles.