9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a solitary ground for grant of bail, but in the present case, this fact has assumed significance in the background of the conduct of the agency having failed to lead pre-charge evidence for 06 months. Considering the cumulative effect of all these circumstances, the Court finds that the petitioner cannot be kept behind bars for indefinite period. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned - petition allowed. - CRM-M-22778-2022 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2022 - HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :- Mr. H.S. Brar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate and Mr. Sumeetpal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Gupta, AAG, Punjab. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing Criminal Complaint No.CMA-867 of 2022 dated 07.05.2022 titled as State of Punjab through Sh. Arvind Sharma, State Tax Officer Vs. Rajan Arora registered for the offence punishable under Section 132(1)(a)(b)(c) of Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the e-way bill data till 30.06.2021. From the analysis, an attempt has been made to ascertain the quantum of taxes evaded under section 132(1)(a) of the PGST/CGST Act, 2017, i.e. supply of goods without issuing an invoice, when Rajan Arora as per the document has shown to have supplied iron scrap to his firms registered in Mandi Gobindgarh but actually these were supplied to the manufacturing furnaces without invoices. Secondly, the analysis helped to quantify the value of supplies of finished goods made by Rajan Arora's firms registered in Mandi Gobindgarh to related firms in Amritsar and New Delhi, again in papers, while the goods were actually supplied to other unrelated firms. By doing so, Rajan Arora not only succeeded in nullifying the liability to pay tax on the purchase of scrap by his firms but also supplied and unloaded the finished goods to purchasers without issuing invoices in their respective accounts. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in is custody since 09.03.2022. The investigation already stands concluded. Challan stands presented on 07.05.2022. He further submits that as per the bare provision of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents which are in the possession of the agency and thus at this stage raising apprehension qua tampering thereof will be a far cry. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 8. The parameters to be considered while deciding the prayer for bail are well laid down by Apex Court in the case of 'State through CBI vs. Amaramani Tripathi, reported as 2005(8) SCC 21', holding that:- xx xx xx It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi 2001 (4) SCC 280 and Gurchar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king note of the earlier decisions governing the field. The gravity of the offence, the object of the Special Act, and the attending circumstances are a few of the factors to be taken note of, along with the period of sentence. After all, an economic offence cannot be classified as such, as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the court to categorise all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis. Suffice it to state that law, as laid down in the following judgements, will govern the field:- Precedents P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791: 23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The grav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. 40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. x xxx xxx 46. 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 jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Court are founded on the basic principle that the due enforcement of criminal law should not be obstructed by the accused taking recourse to artifices and strategies. The public interest in ensuring the due investigation of crime is protected by ensuring that the inherent power of the High Court is exercised with caution. That indeed is one-and a significant-end of the spectrum. The other end of the spectrum is equally important : the recognition by Section 482 of the power inhering in the High Court to prevent the abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice is a valuable safeguard for protecting liberty. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was enacted by a legislature which was not subject to constitutional rights and limitations; yet it recognised the inherent power in Section 561-A. Post- Independence, the recognition by Parliament [ Section 482 CrPC, 1973] of the inherent power of the High Court must be construed as an aid to preserve the constitutional value of liberty. The writ of liberty runs through the fabric of the Constitution. The need to ensure the fair investigation of crime is undoubtedly important in itself, because it protects at one level the rights ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Constitutional Rights but rather recalibrating the scales of justice. 12. In Anil Kumar versus State of Punjab 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 854 it was held:- xx xx xx 9. The latest judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta (supra) wherein the entire law has been discussed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.18 in Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta's case (supra) has held as under: - 18. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. The Court granting bail has to consider, among other circumstances, the factors such as a) the nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognized, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an individual. This Court, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan- (2005) 2 SCC 42, observed that under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable, is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, since the same is authorized by law. But even persons accused of nonbailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the Court is satisfied by reasons to be recorded that in spite of the exi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioners in support of their contentions. I have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. 13. Coming to the facts of the present case the investigation stands concluded and the challan stands presented. Thus, there cannot be any apprehension that the petitioner shall tamper with the evidence. The maximum sentence prescribed under the Act for the offence, the petitioner has been booked is 05 years. Though non issuance of show cause notice for adjudication of the evaded tax under Section 74 of the PGST Act cannot be a solitary ground for grant of bail, but in the present case, this fact has assumed significance in the background of the conduct of the agency having failed to lead pre-charge evidence for 06 months. Considering the cumulative effect of all these circumstances, the Court finds that the petitioner cannot be kept behind bars for indefinite period. 14. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. 15. Needless to say the trial Court shall be at liberty to impose any other condition in accordanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
