9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re made out. It is a settled law which has been reiterated by the Apex Court in number of judicial pronouncements that the purpose of custody of an accused is only to aid investigation. The custodial detention is not to be used as a tool for pre-trial punishment. Since, the custody of the accused is no longer required for aiding the investigation, therefore, no ground is made out for keeping him further detained in custody. Since, the custody of the accused is no longer required for aiding the investigation, therefore, no ground is made out for keeping him further detained in custody - the applicant/accused Jagdish Rai Bansal is admitted to bail subject to conditions stipulated. Bail application allowed. - Bail Application No.2273/2022 BM No.4283/2022 - - - Dated:- 29-12-2022 - SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK : VACATION JUDGE/ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-02 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI Present : Sh. Satish Aggrwala, Senior Special Public Prosecutor for DG (GST) along with Sr. Standing Counsel Sh. Aditya Singhla. IO in person. Sh. Vijay K. Aggarwal, Sh. Nagesh Behl and Sh.Neeraj Tiwari, Counsels (through VC) for applicant/accused along with counsel Sh. Sulhakshu Jain. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the legality of the order dated 15.12.2022. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that ACMM was duty bound to arrive at a satisfaction about the legality of arrest of the applicant but instead of doing so, she mechanically recorded her satisfaction relying on the stand taken by the Duty Magistrate. Counsel has pointed out towards the decision in the matter of Gautam Navlakha Vs. National Investigating Agency (Criminal Appeal No.510/2021, decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India). He has mentioned that in terms of the law propounded in the said judgment, in case, an application opposing the remand has been dismissed, although, an application under Section 397 of Cr.PC would not lie but an application for bail would certainly lie under Section 439 of Cr.PC. He has mentioned that it has been observed in the said matter that in such like cases, ordinarily, the accused would seek bail and the legality and the need for remand would be considered by the court. He has contended that ACMM wrongly construed that the application opposing the remand is in a way a bail application. He has mentioned that the ACMM wrongly applied the principles of law by holding that at the stage of rema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the court. In order to support his contentions, counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:- (a) Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 2014 (8) SCC 273; (b) Anil Mahajan Vs. Commissioner of Customs Anr. 2000 (53) DRJ passed by High Court of Delhi; (c) J.Sekaar Vs. Union of India, (2018) SCC Online Del 13481; (d) State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770; (e) Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit Vs. Union of India, W.P. (Crl.) 363 of 2018; (f) Bail Application No.4019/2020 titled as Raghav Aggarwal Vs Commissioner of Central Tax GST decided by the High Court of Delhi; (g) Jaya Chandaran Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs Superintendent of GST, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 39017; (h) Akhil Krishan Maggu Vs Dy. Director Directorate General of GST, MANU/PH/2721/201; (i) Union of India Ors. Vs Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd., Criminal Appeal No.8080/2018, decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India. (j) Tarun Jain Vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence DGGI decided on 26.11.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi. 7. On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. He has ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be dismissed. 9. Sr. Standing Counsel has mentioned that applicant has caused huge loss to the exchequer and admitting him on bail would send wrong signal to the society. In order to oppose the prayer of bail, he has relied on the decisions in the following cases:- (a) P.V.Ramanna Reddy Vs. Union of India and Ors., decided by the High Court of Telangana in W.P. No.4764/2019 decided on 18.04.2019; (b) P. V. Ramanna Reddy Vs. Union of India Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 784; (c) Sandeep Goyal Vs. Union of India, SLP (Crl.) 1803/2020; (d) Rakesh Arora Vs. State of Punjab, 2021-TIOL-251-HC-P HGST; (e) Amit Kumar Vs. Union of India 2021 5 Gauhati Law Reports 328; (f) Bharat Raj Punj Vs. Central Goods Service Tax Commissionrate 2019 SCC online Raj. 4481; (g) Aditya Gupta Vs. Union of India 2020 SCC Online Raj. 1235; (h) Subhash Kumar Singh Vs. State of Assam Anr. 2021 4 Guahati Law Reports 622; (i) Amit Beriwal Vs. State of Odisha, 2020 SCC Online Ori.546; (j) Shailesh Rajpal Vs. Commissioner 2019 SCC Online MP 6396; (k) Saurav Bajoria Vs. Union of India, 2022 58 GSTL 20 Gau.; (l) Arvind Kumar Munka Vs. Un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the legality and the need for remand shall be considered by the court in an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Thus, in view of the said preposition of law, to a limited extent, this court needs to look into the order dated 15.12.2022 to see if the grounds for extending the remand were considered by the ACMM. 13. I have perused the order dated 15.12.2022 whereby the remand of the accused was extended. The Apex Court has categorically held in the matter of Arnesh Kumar s case (supra) that a Magistrate must apply his mind and record satisfaction before extending the remand of an accused. It has been held by the court that before extending further detention of the accused, the Magistrate must appreciate if the grounds for extension exists and the remand cannot be extended mechanically in a routine manner. On appreciating the order dated 15.12.2022, I find that instead of recording her own satisfaction about the grounds for further detention, ACMM proceeded on a wrong premise that it only has to see if a prima-facie case is made out against the accused. At that stage, as per the mandate in Arnesh Kumar s case (supra), Magistrate was under an obligation to see if the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as follows : .. (c) The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. The principal rule to guide release on bail should be to secure the presence of the applicant to take judgment and serve sentence in the event of the Court punishing him with imprisonment. (d) Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Even assuming that the accused is prima-facie guilty of a grave offence, bail cannot be refused in an indirect process of punishing the accused person before he is convicted. .. (j) While exercising the power under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code in cases involving non-bailable offences except cases relating to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life, judicial discretion would always be exercised by the Court in favour of granting bail subject to sub-section 3 of Section 437 with regard to imposition of conditions, if necessary. Unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court which might defeat proper investigation and a fair trial, the Court will not decline to grant bail to a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. .. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of grave offence and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provide so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber of judicial pronouncements that the purpose of custody of an accused is only to aid investigation. The custodial detention is not to be used as a tool for pre-trial punishment. Since, the custody of the accused is no longer required for aiding the investigation, therefore, no ground is made out for keeping him further detained in custody. In view of the above, the applicant/accused Jagdish Rai Bansal is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with two such sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the ACMM/CMM/MM/Duty MM. The order is also subject to the following conditions: i. Applicant shall surrender his passport before the Investigating Office/Apprehending Authority and under no circumstances leave India without prior permission of the Investigation Officer/Apprehending authority, and if he does not possess any passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect before the Investigating Officer/Apprehending authority. ii. Applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer/Apprehending authority as and when summoned; iii. Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
