9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of economic offence does not dis-entitled any person from seeking personal liberty unless there are overwhelming material against such person. In the present case, no trail has been brought on record which shows that accused Ashish Aggarwal is the ultimate beneficiary of alleged fake ITC credits - pre trial detention of accused Ashish Aggarwal is no more required as firstly, he has not been investigated / interrogated while remained in judicial custody since 29.10.2020, secondly, all evidences against the accused are primarily documentary in nature and also the fact that he is not the ultimate beneficiary of alleged fake ITC Credits. The accused Ashish Aggarwal Is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond In the sum of Rupees One Lakh with one surety of like amount subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed. - - - - - Dated:- 14-11-2020 - PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT CMM/ND/PATIALA HOUSE COURT Application received from the court of Ld ACMM-1/PHC/NDD as Ld. Duty MM on 13.11.2020. Present: Sh. Harpreet Singh, Ld Sr. SPP for the Department Sh. Harsh Sethi and Sh. Sarvapriya Makkar, Ld Counsel for Accused. An application under section 437 CrPC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passing off fake ITC to the tune of ₹ 77 Crores, ₹ 4 Crores through M/s. Aaditya Sales, ₹ 22 Crores approx. through M/s. Shiv Muskaan Traders, ₹ 12 Crores approx. through M/s. Nidhi One Foods. He submit that accused used multiple firms to pass on fake ITC and has also availed fake ITC without actual movement of good. He further pointed out that ₹ 7 Crores secured from other taxpayers involved in this network of fake billing and no GST has been deposited by the firm being operated by Ashish Aggarwal. Ld Sr. SPP also submits that Sanjay Kumar Garg, Proprietor of Devyani Agro Industries is cousin of accused Ashish Aggarwal and said firm of Sanjay Kumar Garg had availed admissible ITC to the tune of ₹ 22 Crores from the firms controlled by accused Ashish Aggarwal and further passed inadmissible credit to the tune of ₹ 29 Crores. Ld Sr. SPP also submits that the accused was apprehended after 60 days of intense efforts and if released on bail, he may hamper the investigation as he will be in contact with parties involved in this network and therefore the present bail application deserved to be rejected. He relied upon the judgement titled a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that accused persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial, but in such case 'necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the constitution that any persons should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an accused person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. While considering an application for bail either under Section 437 CrPC, it must be kep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. then bail will be refused. Furthermore, In the landmark Judgment of Gurucharan Singh and others v. State (AIR 1978 SC 179), It was held that there is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of such discretion by the courts. It was further held that there cannot be any Inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. It was further held that facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail. It was further held that such question depends upon a variety of circumstances, cumulative effect of which must enter Into the Judicial verdict. Such Judgment Itself mentioned the nature and seriousness of nature, and circumstances in which offences are committed apart from character of evidence as some of the relevant factors in deciding whether to grant bail or not. The object of pre trial detention of an accused is threefold. Firstly, accused could be detained in custody if some recovery of weapon/equipments used in the alleged crime are to be recovered and there is apprehension if released on bail, accused they hamper the inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Maya Impex is owned by Mrs. Sushma Rani but stated to be handled by accused Ashish Aggarwal. No documents showing such handling / managing of the affair of M/s. Maya Impex are produced by the 10. NO reasons have been given why no action was taken against Mrs. Sushma Rani and she has been let off only on the basis of her statement. The plea of the Ld. Sr. SPP that one Sanjay Kumar Garg, Proprietor of Devyani Agro Industries has been arrested which alleged to have been involved in fake billing of GST and the said Sajay Kumar Garg happens to be cousin of Ashish Aggarwal and therefore there is complicity between both the accused is humbly rejected as being relative of a person does not makes the other persons liable for misdeeds of such person. Ld Sr. SPP has failed to point out that what investigation will be hampered by the accused as all investigation is to be documents based and most of the record will be of the GST Returns / ITC Credit which are available in the records of the investigating agency. No doubt, economic offences should be dealt with sternly, however mere allegations of economic offence does not dis-entitled any person from seeking personal liberty unless the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
