9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (l) of the CGST Act, 2017 on 30.12.2023. Counsel submits that the maximum punishment for the above alleged offence is five years and the same is triable by the Court of Magistrate (First Class). Counsel submits that looking to the period of incarceration of the petitioner and looking to the fact that the alleged offence is triable by Court of Magistrate, indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following orders/judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in the following cases:- 1. Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India reported in 2023 (2) SCC Online 621. 2. Rishabh Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.10718/2023) decided on 04.12.2023. 3. Ravindra Kumar Vs. Union of India and Anr. (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.2937/2022) decided on 08.02.2023. 4. Nikhil Gupta Vs. Union of India and Anr. (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No.17510/2022) decided 10.02.2023. 5. Shubham Jindal Vs. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.11285/2023) decided on 06.10.2023. 6. Babulal Qazi Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el submits that the petitioner was involved in committing the offence and has caused loss of Rs.1,032 Crores to the Government. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get indulgence of bail from this Court. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following orders/judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as different High Courts, in the following cases:- 1. Surjeet Singh Chhabra Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1997 (1) SCC 508. 2. Naresh J. Sukhawani Vs. Union of India reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 663. 3. Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.15833/2023) decided on 19.02.2024. 4. Sandeep Goyal Vs. Union of India (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1803/2020). 5. Sandeep Goyal Vs. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No.1521/2020) decided on 05.02.2020. 6. Basudev Mittal Vs. Union of India (MCRC No.3919/2022) decided on 15.07.2022 (passed by Chattisgarh High Court). 7. Lalit Goyal Vs. Union of India and Ors. (S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.13042/2021) decided on 07.09.2021. 3. Heard and considered the submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvations:- "The allegation in the charge sheet itself speaks and states that accused-petitioner has generated the fake ITCs of Rs.20,2,40,841/-. It is settled law that economic offences constitute a class apart a class apart and required to be scanned with a different approach in the matter of bail. In the matter of Ratnambar Kaushik (Supra), the facts were entirely different and that was not a case of generating the fake ITC. In that case, goods were supplied without paying the CGST. In the present case, the facts are entirely different. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Lalit Goyal (supra) vide order dated 26.08.2022 dismissed the bail application of the petitioner. In the matter of Lalit Goyal, it was alleged that petitioner Lalit Goyal and other persons had made various fake firms and claimed Input Tax Credit of Rs.18.91 Crores without any transportation of goods. In that case, co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13042/2021 dated 07.09.2021 dismissed the bail application of the petitioner and in SLP vide order dated 26.08.2022, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, therefore, considering the gravity of the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o doubt the country did make some progress but a big chunk of money earmarked for developmental projects has been pocketed by the "white-collar criminals" by doing such illegal activities of causing huge loss to our Country in crores of rupees. 12. This Court finds no substance in the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to get bail merely because the alleged offence under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 is punishable with an imprisonment of five years and the same is triable by the Court of Magistrate First Class. There cannot be any straight jacket formula to decide the bail applications in favour to the accused merely because the alleged offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class and the same is punishable with an imprisonment of five years only. Every bail application is required to be decided on its own facts and circumstances and the merits of the case. Every case has different facts and allegations and while deciding the bail applications, the Court has to keep the nature of evidence and accusation in mind and then decide the bail applications accordingly. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
