9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h of December 2020 which shows that the respondents have been joining the investigation and there are no allegations of non-cooperation. There are no allegations of any tampering or influencing of the witnesses. There are also no allegations that the respondents are flight risk or there is any likelihood of their absconding. The petitioner has not been able to make out a case of supervening circumstances on the basis of which the bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled and nothing has been brought on record to show that the respondents have such a towering personality that their mere presence out on bail would in any manner thwart the further investigation of the case or that they are in any manner threat to the fair trial of this case. There are no reason for pre-trial incarceration of the respondents in the present case - petition dismissed. - CRL.M.C. 231/2021 - - - Dated:- 4-6-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR Petitioner Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Arunesh Sharma and Ms. Suhani Mathur, Advs. Respondents Through: Mr. Harsh Sethi, Adv. JUDGMENT RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J. 1. By virtue of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... despite summons dated 30.08.2020, 04.09.2020 and 07.09.2020 issued to the respondent No. 2, he failed to comply with any of the summons and it was only on 17.09.2020 that his statement could finally be recorded in response to the summons dated 14.09.2020. 5. It is further averred that on 11.11.2020 and 12.11.2020 statement of respondent No. 1 was recorded and during his statement he submitted that he is the authorized signatory of the company and reports to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 stated that he looks after the accounting audit and financial operations of the company. It is further averred that fake ITC could not have been availed by the company without the active participation of respondent No. 1. It is further averred that respondent No. 1 submitted that Sh. Harmesh Mohan Sood is the decision maker and responsible for any fake billing that may have been done by M/s Milkfood Limited and he could not confirm or deny whether the goods have actually been supplied in the transactions of M/s Milkfood Limited with M/s Maya Impex, M/s Aditya Sales, M/s Shiv Muskaan Traders, M/s Shri Nidhivan Foods, M/s Haryana Sales and M/s Shyam Sales Corporation, as he was only working in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crores as is assumed by the Department is accepted, it is open to the petitioner to file appeal after the assessment order is passed; and as per the statutory stipulation, such appeal could be filed upon deposit of only 10% of the disputed liability . In that event, the deposit amount may not exceed ₹ 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores), which the petitioner willing to deposit within one week from today without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the assessment proceedings and the appeal to be filed thereafter, if required. Issue notice on condition that the petitioner shall deposit ₹ 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores) to the credit of C. No. IV/16/27/201HPU on the file of the Commissioner of GST Central Excise, Salem, Tamil Nadu and produce receipt in that behalf in the Registry of this Court within ten days from today, failing which the special leave petition shall stand dismissed for nonprosecution without further reference to the Court. Subject to the above, notice returnable within three weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. For a period of one week, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner in connection with the alleged offence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability is created for the Government. Reliance has also been placed upon UOI Vs. Sapna Jain, SLP (Crl.) 4322-4324/2019. 11. It is further argued that in these circumstances, the respondents could not have been granted bail and also the fact that the respondents did not join the investigation. It is further argued that the statements which have been subsequently recorded by the petitioner (department) have revealed that active roles have been played by the respondents in defrauding the Government Exchequer. It is further argued that from the statement of the respondents it is evident that M/s Milkfood Limited had complete control over the sales and purchases of M/s Maya Impex and other firms which were being operated by said Ashish Aggarwal which used to raise fake invoices without actual supply of goods as admitted by Ashish Aggarwal. 12. Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Sanjay Verma Vs. State 1991 (2) Crimes 325 , wherein it has been observed that Economic offences are place at higher pedestal than murder . Reliance has also been placed upon State of U.P. Through CBI V. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amely State of U.P. Through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as that was a case of murder where the maximum punishment for the alleged offence is death penalty whereas in the present case the maximum punishment for the offence alleged does not exceed more than 5 years. 17. It is further argued by the Ld. counsel for the respondents that the alleged self incriminatory statements relied upon by the petitioner for cancellation of bail are prima facie not a ground for seeking cancellation of bail because not only the said statements were recorded prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 24.11.2020, rather there is no self-incriminatory averment in the same and the same are required to be proved by the department during trial with independent corroboration. It is further submitted that even after passing of the impugned order dated 24.11.2020, the respondents were summoned in December 2020 and their detailed statements were subsequently recorded, therefore, it cannot be said that there is non-co-operation on the part of the respondents and it is also not understood as to for what purpose their custody is required by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. 21. It is settled that once bail granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without there being any supervening circumstances which are not conducive to fair trial. It cannot be cancelled on a request from the side of the complainant/investigating agency unless and until it is established that the same is being misused and it is no longer conducive in the interest of justice to allow the accused any further to remain on bail. No doubt, the bail can be cancelled only in those discerning few cases where it is established that a person to whom the concession of bail has been granted is misusing the same. 22. In the instant case, the respondents have joined the investigation and there are no allegations that they have not co-operated in the said investigation. According to the counsel for the petitioner in view of the statements made by the respondents, the bail granted to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
