9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterrogation is based on the following judicial precedents, which bind all the investigating agencies - The petitioner took enormous advantage of the loopholes and defects in the GST software, the system put in place, and the lack of efficient standards to ensure that it becomes impossible to misuse the scheme. Given the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation is required. An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. - CRM-M-35355-2022 - - - Dated:- 8-9-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Edward Augustine George, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajat Gautam, DAG, Haryana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke the present case, where it is more than rupees one crore, the investigating agency's demand for custodial interrogation is based on the following judicial precedents, which bind all the investigating agencies. 8. In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and another (2012) 4 SCC 379, Hon ble Supreme Court holds, [19]. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. [ See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the scheme. 10. The argument that the co-accused was granted bail and even the petitioner is entitled to bail on parity, is not sustainable because the specific allegations against the co-accused Shrawan were that a sum of rupees ten lacs had fallen to his share and he had undergone custody of five months. Thus, the bail granted to the co-accused was in an application filed under section 439 CrPC, (CRM-M-26610-2022), and the petitioner had undergone custody of five months viz-a-viz the alleged amount of Rs. Ten lacs. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to bail on parity. 11. Given the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation is required. An analysis of the allegations and evidence collected does not warrant the grant of bail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
