9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tinue to be in custody after rejection of previous bail application, the second bail application filed within six days of rejection of previous bail application without any new grounds, cannot be said it to be maintainable. The learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in TASNEEM RIZWAN SIDDIQUEE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [ 2018 (3) TMI 1690 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] to support his contention that bail has to be granted for non compliance of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. I however, find that no such proposition is laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cited Judgment. In fact, release of petitioner's husband from custody was directed in habeas corpus peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances for consideration of fresh bail application. 3] It is further submitted that the grounds mentioned for the consideration of this second bail application are as under: a] Noncompliance of guidelines issued by Apex Court and not following procedure U/s. 41A of Cr.P.C. b] The investigation is being carried out by DGGI, CGST and MGST. There is bar of Section 6(2) of CGST Act where MGST is not authorised to take cognizance. c] The applicant has totally paid the GST approximately to the tune of 5 Crore by way of DRC 03 which are voluntary Column No.4 of the Receipt. d] No complaint U/s. 200 of Cr.P.C. or FIR has been registered by department as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble High Court in Daulat Mehta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant has effected outward supply by issuing fake invoices of more than ₹ 233.96 Crores and passed on wrongful ITC (Input Tax Credit) of ₹ 41.95 Crores. ii] The applicant has shown inward supplies of 67.15 Crores from nongenuine entities who are nonexistent, who has not been conducting any business from any place for which registration has been obtained, and who has obtained Registration Certificate by using false documents and availed ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) of ₹ 12.11 Crores. iii] That the present bail application is nothing but the replica of the first bail application bearing No. 8770/2021 which was rejected by this Court on 12/01/2022. iv] That the present bail application is mostly highlighted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintainability of second bail application, the learned counsel for the applicant has argued that continued detention of the applicant accused after rejection of previous bail application is a change in circumstances for consideration of the present application and even each days confinement of the accused is change in circumstances for consideration of fresh bail application. Therefore, the second bail application is maintainable. In support of his argument the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mohan Raikwar Vs. State of M.P., 1999(2) M.P.L.J. 663 and more particularly its observations that the changed circumstances do not mean some extra ordinary changes. Each d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Basanta Panda Vs. State of Odisha, BLAPL No. 8126 of 2020 decided on 02/08/2021. He has also submitted that the grounds of previous bail application and that of the present second bail application are same and therefore, the present application needs no consideration. 10] Admittedly, the present application is a successive/second bail application, therefore, it is necessary to see as to whether there is any change in circumstances warranting consideration of the present application. I have gone through the Judgments of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mohan Raikwar Vs. State of M.P and that of Orissa High Court in Basant Panda Vs. State of Odisha as cited before me. I find that the Judgment of the Orissa High Court is a recent one and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e successive bail application is moved taking some other grounds and the Court is asked to reconsider the prayer of bail, it would be an endless exercise for the court and entertaining such application would be a sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court. 11] I have gone through the copy of earlier bail application and order passed thereon on 12/01/2022 and the present bail application. I find that the same grounds are repeated in the second bail application. The Judgments cited on behalf of the applicant while deciding the previous bail application are being pressed in while supporting the second bail application. Factually, no new grounds or facts warranting consideration of second bail application are mentioned in the application. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
