2024 (1) TMI 925 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - Non-appearance for investigation on one or two dates - HELD THAT - Non-appearance for investigation on one or two dates cannot be ground for cancellation of bail. It is an admitted position that after grant of regular bail, Manish Goyal did appear before the authorities pursuant to summons received by him on various occasions. Therefore, the order dated 15th September, 2023, passed by the Sessions Court cancelling bail on account of non appearance on one or two dates is harsh and is accordingly set aside. Though this Court is confirming the bail granted to Manish Goyal, he is warned that in the future, if he does not appear pursuant to summons issued by the DGGI, his bail would be liable to be cancelled. However, the DGGI shall give a notice of at least 48 hours to appear pursuant to the issuance of summons - Liberty is given to the DGGI to seek cancellation of bail in the event Manish Goyal fails to appear in a timely manner pursuant to summons issued. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the grant of regular bail to the accused Manish Goyal by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) and the subsequent cancellation of the bail by the same ASJ based on non-appearance of the accused for investigation.

Issue 1: Grant of Regular Bail
The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) filed a petition against the order granting bail to Manish Goyal, who was accused of economic offenses related to GST evasion. The DGGI presented evidence showing discrepancies in the business activities of M/s Radiant Traders, the accused's firm, and the quality of the products being exported. Manish Goyal was arrested under the CGST Act, and his bail application was initially dismissed but later granted by the ASJ. The DGGI argued that Manish Goyal needed to be in custody to uncover the conspiracy and prevent interaction with other accused persons. They relied on Manish Goyal's statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act, which indicated discrepancies in the business operations and product manufacturing at M/s Radiant Traders.

Issue 2: Cancellation of Bail
After being granted bail, Manish Goyal failed to comply with investigation summons, leading the DGGI to seek cancellation of his bail. The ASJ granted the cancellation, citing non-compliance with the investigation process. However, the defense argued that the CRCL report was inconclusive, and there was no criminal complaint filed yet, making it a pre-chargesheet case. They contended that non-appearance on one date, except due to ill-health, should not be grounds for bail cancellation. The High Court reviewed the statements of involved parties and found that Manish Goyal seemed to be acting under the direction of the main accused, Chirag Goel, who controlled M/s Radiant Traders. The court concluded that the cancellation of bail based on non-appearance on one or two dates was unwarranted and set aside the ASJ's order.

Separate Judgment:
The High Court, while confirming the bail granted to Manish Goyal, warned him to strictly comply with the conditions imposed during the bail grant. Non-appearance for investigation on one or two dates was deemed insufficient for bail cancellation. However, Manish Goyal was cautioned that future non-compliance could lead to bail cancellation, with the DGGI required to provide a 48-hour notice before seeking cancellation. The DGGI was given liberty to request bail cancellation if Manish Goyal failed to appear promptly as per summons issued. The court emphasized that its observations were solely for bail decisions and not indicative of the case's merits.