9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion and also considered the fact that the applicant is in custody since 02.02.2024. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions imposed - the present application is allowed. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Appearance: MR. APURVA N MEHTA(7202) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant to the offence in question. 3.1 Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the allegations in the Arrest Memo are absolutely general and vague in nature. The entire case of the prosecution is based on presumption and assumptions and there is not even an iota of evidence against the applicant. He submitted that the arrest memo is totally silent in so far as the details of offences committed by the present applicant is concerned. No subjective satisfaction is recorded. It is simply states that the applicant has committed offence under Section 132(1)(c) of the GST Act. 3.2 Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that mere claiming of ineligible tax credit would not attract the offence under Section 132 (1)(c) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .45 Crores on the basis of purchases made from six registered entities, which according to the revenue are found to be non-existing. This Court has also considered punishment prescribed for the offence in question and also considered the fact that the applicant is in custody since 02.02.2024. 6. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012]1 SCC 40. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
