2024 (1) TMI 874 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - issuing fake bills by creating paper firms - HELD THAT - There is no denial to the fact that the economic offences constitute a separate class of their own, but trite it is that presumption of innocence is one of the bedrocks on which the criminal jurisprudence rests. Time and again, Apex Court has reiterated the need to integrate the right of investigating agencies to have effective interrogation of the accused with the right of liberty of the accused. The incarceration suffered by the petitioner, the maximum punishment prescribed under the law and the fact that investigation already stands concluded, and in view of dictum of law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil's case 2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT , the present petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of regular bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C.
2. Allegations against the petitioner.
3. Parameters for granting bail in economic offences.
4. Judicial precedents on bail in economic offences.
5. Conditions for granting bail.

Issue-wise Summary:

1. Grant of regular bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C.:
The petitioner sought regular bail pending trial in complaint case No. CHA/170/2023 for offences punishable u/s 132(1)(a)(b)(c) and (i) of the Punjab Goods and Services Act, 2017, and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, read with Section 69(1) of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

2. Allegations against the petitioner:
The petitioner was accused of issuing fake bills by creating paper firms, causing a loss of more than Rs. 32.00 crores to the Exchequer. The allegations included the recovery of incriminating evidence and the possibility of the petitioner influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence if released on bail.

3. Parameters for granting bail in economic offences:
The court referred to the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in 'State through CBI vs. Amaramani Tripathi', which include factors such as prima facie evidence, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of punishment, risk of absconding, character of the accused, likelihood of offence repetition, and potential tampering with evidence or witnesses.

4. Judicial precedents on bail in economic offences:
The court discussed several precedents, including 'Manoranjana Singh @ Gupta vs. Central Bureau of Investigation', 'Maninder Sharma vs. State Tax Officer', 'Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation', and 'Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI'. These cases emphasized that while economic offences are serious, the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty must be balanced. The court highlighted that bail should not be denied solely based on the seriousness of the charge and that the triple test (flight risk, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses) should guide the decision.

5. Conditions for granting bail:
The court granted bail to the petitioner, considering the incarceration already suffered, the maximum punishment prescribed, and the completion of the investigation. The petitioner was ordered to furnish bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Conditions included the surrender of the passport, an undertaking not to alter documents or contact details, and informing the agency of any change in the mobile number.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail with specific conditions to ensure compliance and prevent tampering with the ongoing investigation.