9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epends upon the facts and circumstances of each case - Here in the present case, after the arrest, the applicant has shown his bonafideness as discussed hereinabove. The applicant does not have any past record. The authority has expressed the apprehension that if bail is granted, the applicant will flee from justice and considering the pending investigation, his custody is necessary. This contention having no any merits, as merely raising the contention is not enough but it should be substantiate by acceptable material. In the present case, nothing on record to show that the investigation qua applicant is incomplete and he having tendency to flee away from justice. The entire documentary evidence seized by the authority. In such circumstances, when the authority failed to point out that the further custody of the applicant is necessary, and considering the particular facts and circumstances of the present case and keeping in mind the settled law laid down in the case of SANJAY CHANDRA VERSUS CBI [ 2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT] , wherein, it was observed that detention of the accused for an indefinite period is in violation of Article 21. The applicant is ordered to be relea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted into monetary loss to the government exchequer to the tune of Rs.9.33 crores. 4. The applicant herein served a summon, however, he did not complied it. On 17.03.2022, the authority visited the business place of the applicant, made extensive search of the place and seized material documents and recorded statement of the applicant and thereafter, on 18.03.2022, he was arrested for the alleged offence as referred hereinabove. He was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. 5. The applicant herein moved an applications for regular bail before the Courts below and Courts below have rejected the bail application vide its order dated 22.03.2022 and 05.04.2022 respectively. 6. This Court has heard learned Senior counsel Mr. Manish Bhatt assisted by Mr. U.N. Sheth, learned advocate for and on behalf of applicant, Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned APP for the respondent State. 7. Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel for and on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely involved without any reasonable ground. He urg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is based on documentary evidence and when substantial investigation qua the applicant is over, the further custody of the applicant is not necessary, more particularly when trial will not commenced in near future. 13. In support of aforesaid contentions, Mr. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, 2012 (1) SCC 40 to contend that the grant of bail is a rule and denial is exceptional, as in the facts of present case, the prosecution failed to point out that the further detention is necessary. 14. In view of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel submitted that discretion may kindly be exercised by enlarging the applicant on bail. 15. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel Mr. Nikunt Raval for respondent no. 1 opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the learned senior counsel for the applicant and reiterating the facts of the affidavit filed by the officer of the Department, contended that the evasion of the duty is Rs.9.33 crores and considering the larger conspiracy hatched by Mr. Bharat Soni and his associates and the applicant being a part of the conspiracy and considering the nature of of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... checking with our other supplier and if we find some other nongenuine supplier, we will present the concerned supplier or we will pay the ITC disputed and I assured that I will pay the disputed ITC through DRC .. 22. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the applicant has paid Rs.2,90,00,000/- through Electronic Cash Ledger as well cash. The amount involved is Rs.9.33 crores. In such circumstances, more than 10% amount has been deposited. It is settled law that there is no straight jacket formula for consideration of grant of bail to an accused. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Here in the present case, after the arrest, the applicant has shown his bonafideness as discussed hereinabove. The applicant does not have any past record. The authority has expressed the apprehension that if bail is granted, the applicant will flee from justice and considering the pending investigation, his custody is necessary. This contention having no any merits, as merely raising the contention is not enough but it should be substantiate by acceptable material. In the present case, nothing on record to show that the investigation qua applicant is incomplet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
