9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 10-10-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Ms.Munisha Gandhi , Sr. Advocate with Mr. Adarsh Dubey and Mr. Deepak Gupta , Advocates for the petitioner Mr.Sourabh Goel , Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC ORDER AMAN CHAUDHARY , J. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 132(1)(i) read with Section 132(1)(b)(c)(e)(f) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Learned Senior counsel submits that the allegations against the petitioner are that he being a registered Chartered Accountant, shared with co-accused Gaurav Dhir, his One Time Password, basis on which, Unique Document Identification Number was generated, which was used by him for the purpose of issuance of a CA certificate, without the knowledge or authority of the petitioner. She further submits that the said document was also signed by the co-accused and not the petitioner. It is her further submission that it was the first and only instance of the petitioner sharing this information with the co-accused. However, pursuant to the notice by which, the petitioner was summoned, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ramendu Chattopadhyay 2020(1) RCR (Crl.) 167; The State of Bihar and another vs. Amit Kumar @ Bacha Rai 2017(3) RCR (Crl.) 690, SLP (Crl.) Nos. 4322 and 4324 of 2019 in case of Union of India vs. Sapna Jain; Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2013(3) RCR (Crl.) 175 (paras 27 and 29); Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2013(3) RCR (Crl.) 108 (paras 14 to 17) and P.V. Ramana Reddy vs. Union of India 2019(25) G.S.T.L.185, (para 39 to 46) (Telangana), Heard the learned counsel for the parties. For considering the present petition, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI 2011(4) RCR (Crl.) 898, wherein it was held as under:- 28) We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial. In the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI and others, SLP (Crl) 5191 of 2021, decided on 11.07.2022, Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, in order to issue guidelines meant for investigating agencies and Courts, has also relied upon the aforesaid judgments. It has also been observed in Amit Kumar @ Bacha Rai (supra), that there is no straight jacket formula for consideration of grant of bail to an accused and it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Para relevant in this regard, reads thus: 12. Although there is no quarrel with respect to the legal propositions canvassed by the learned counsels, it should be noted 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. The Government's interest in preventing crime by arrestees is both legitimate and compelling. So also is the cherished right of personal liberty envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is the bail provision, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elease the appellant on bail at that juncture and Hon'ble the Supreme Court held the appellants not entitled to be released on bail and direction was issued to complete investigation preferably in four months. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra), held that release of the appellants may hamper the investigation and the CBI was directed to complete investigation and file charge sheet within four months and the appellants would be free to renew the prayer for bail before the trial Court as observed in the earlier order dated 5.10.2012, which the trial Court would be free to consider the prayer for bail independently on its own merit. In the present case the investigation has been completed and the challan stands presented; petitioner is stated to be not the beneficiary; he is not involved in any other case; he is in custody since 17.5.2022; nothing is to be recovered from him; there are a total of 21 PWs; it is a Magisterial trial, which is yet to commence; thus, further incarceration of the petitioner behind bars would not serve any useful purpose, the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed. Keeping in vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
