9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t since the transactions in question were basically one and the same involving the present petitioner and the co-accused Atul Bansal, there is hardly any justification to treat the petitioner differently than him. Coming to the apprehension of the prosecution that the present petitioner may tamper with the evidence, this Court is unable to accept the same for the reason that a bare perusal of the prosecution report would suggest that the same was submitted after thorough investigation during which several documents and records were verified and statements collected from different persons. The report of further investigation also suggests that the same has been/is being conducted in different States whereby, several incriminating materials have supposedly been discovered - the apprehension expressed by the prosecution does not appear to be reasonable for being considered as a ground to refuse bail to the petitioner. This Court finds that the petitioner has been successful in making out a good case for his release on bail. On the other hand, the prosecution has failed to satisfy the court as to how it would be prejudiced by grant of bail to the petitioner - It is directed that the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... currence were prosecuted. As already stated, the accused was arrested and taken into custody on 17.08.2020 during investigation. The prosecution report was submitted on 09.10.2020 by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Enforcement Unit, Rourkela (Investigating Officer) against the accused-petitioner with a request to keep the investigation open for addition of new materials and evidence. 4. Sri R.P. Kar, submits that even assuming that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner, fact remains that the prescribed punishment for the alleged offence is only five years and the accused has in the meantime stayed more than one year in custody. Since the prosecution report has already been submitted, there should be no impediment in directing release of the petitioner. Mr. Kar further contends that the master mind of the entire transaction as per the prosecution report was one Atul Bansal, who, being similarly prosecuted for the same offence and facing trial in 2(c)CC No. 6/2019 pending in the court of learned JMFC, Chandikhol corresponding to GST and CT Enforcement Wing, Jajpur, Jajpur Road Case No. 1/2019-20, has since been granted bail by this court vide order dated 06.03.2020 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of the co-accused- Atul Bansal. Mr. Kar has also referred to some other orders passed by this court, all of which involve the offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c)&(i) of OGST Act, 2017, such as, BLAPL No.4125 of 2020 (Pramod Kumar Sahoo vs. State of Odisha), BLAPL No. 4266 of 2020 (Bikash @ Vikas Sarawgi vs. State of Odisha), BLAPL No. 6643 of 2020 (Amit Beriwal vs. State of Orissa), BLAPL No. 3175 of 2021 (Subash Chandra Swain vs. State of Odisha), BLAPL No. 4687 of 2020 (Kamal Pasati vs. Union of India), and BLAPL No. 7260 of 2019 (Rajesh Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India). It is observed that in all the cases, the concerned petitioners, being involved in cases involving commission of offence punishable under Section 132(1)(b)(c)&(i) of OGST Act have been granted bail. 7. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Mishra, has referred to the decision of the apex court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 55 OCR (SC) 825; State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal reported in AIR 1987 SC 1321; Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466; and judgment of this Court in BLAPL No. 7580 of 2018 (Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be taken as a bar to consider the grant of bail to the accused on grounds of parity in the case at hand. 10. The facts of the case may now be considered in the backdrop of the aforementioned legal propositions. The petitioner is in custody since 17.08.2020. P.R. was submitted on 09.10.2020 keeping the investigation open. From the report filed by the prosecution on 02.07.2021, it is seen that further investigation is still in progress. The question is, can this be a ground to deny bail to the accused indefinitely. It should be kept in mind that the offences under Section 132(1)(b)(c)&(i) of the OGST Act are punishable with a maximum punishment of five years Rigorous Imprisonment. Therefore, investigation ought to be completed within 60 days as per Section 167 Cr.P.C. Of course, Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. permits the investigating agency to keep the investigation open. But the same, if not concluded for an indefinite period, cannot obviously be cited as a ground to detain the accused in custody. As is seen, the initial prosecution report was filed way back on 09.10.2020 and till date further investigation is said to be in progress. Thus, more than a year has elapsed from the date o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
