9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine . Taking into consideration the investigation and evidence so collected, the trial will take considerable time and it may happen, if denied bail, the judicial custody be prolonged beyond the statutory period of punishment which is for five years. In the case of Vinay Kant Ameta [ 2022 (7) TMI 1106 - SC ORDER ], the Hon ble Apex Court directed the accused to deposit Rs. 200 crores as a condition for grant of bail, therefore, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is deemed just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olation of the guidelines laid down in case of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416. It is also argued that offences are triable by Magistrate and petitioner is behind the bars since 04.11.2022 and now challan of the case has also been presented, therefore, there is no question of tampering with evidence or winning over witnesses in this case and thus no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. UOI reported in (2022) SC 1215 and decision in the case of Vinay Kant Ameta Vs. UOI (Criminal Appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court directed the petitioner therein, to deposit Rs.200 crores and Rs. 2 crores respectively, as a condition for grant of bail. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that petitioner was arrested on 04.11.2022 and since then, he is in judicial custody. The challan of the case has already been presented and no investigation is pending. Section 132(1)(i) of the Act provides for punishment that in cases where the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds five hundred lakh rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine . Taking into considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
