9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the investigation has been concluded and the final P.R. has been submitted. In such view of the matter, this Court is persuaded to release the petitioner on bail on stringent terms and conditions. It is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bail bound of Rs.50,000/- with two local solvent sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court in seisin over the matter and subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - the bail application of the Petitioner stands allowed. - JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA For the Petitioner : Mr. Rudra Prasad Kar, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Itishree Tripathy, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Tushar Kanti Satapathy, Senior Standing Counsel for GST Central Tax A.K. MOHAPATRA, J. : 1. Assailing order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Rourkela passed in BLAPL No.129 of 2024 whereby the regular bail application of the petitioner was rejected, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in the present bail application is for grant of regular bail in connection with 2 (C) (CC) Case No.11 of 202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel for the GST and Central Tax. Perused all the materials on record. 5. Mr. Kar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset raised the following grounds in support of his contention to release the petitioner on regular bail:- I) The Maximum Period of punishment prescribed under the alleged Sections is up to 5 years and those offences are all triable by magistrate. II) Investigation has been concluded and final P.R. has been submitted. III) Arrest of the petitioner is based on the confessional statement of Principal accused, namely Sri Chandraprakash Jaiswal and, that the said principal accused has not been arrested as of now. IV) Issuer and receiver (i.e the Beneficiaries) have not made as accused in the present case and as such, they have neither been interrogated nor have they been taken into custody. V) Certificate of Registration under the CGST Act has been issued by the competent authority after conducting due enquiry and investigation. VI) Offences alleged are compoundable in nature in view of the provisions contained in Section 138 of CGST Act, 2017. VII) The nature of the case is such that the prosecution is to rely upon documentary evidence store ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igating Agency, especially since the petitioner has been in custody for more than four months as of now and, in the meantime the final P.R. has also been filed. 8. Furthermore, in the course of his argument, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner emphatically argued that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused, who happens to be the principal accused, namely one Chandraprakash Jaiswal. Although the final P.R. has been submitted indicating the fact that the investigation has come to an end, the above named principal accused has not been arrested either during the investigation or as of now. Therefore, keeping the aforementioned factual position in mind, any further detention of the petitioner in custody would be highly illegal and the same would be contrary to the underlying principle contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. With regard to the antecedent of the present petitioner, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that, no doubt the petitioner is having one similar criminal antecedent, however, the same is not in any way conclusive in proving the guilt of the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the petitioner further referred to the conduct of the CGST authority. In the said context, Mr. Kar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that although a notice was issued on 05.03.2024 under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 for production of documents, the petitioner was arrested on the very next day, i.e. on 06.03.2024. In such view of the matter, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions contained under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 became nugatory and that such a provision in the act has become otiose. Once the authorities issued a summons under Section 70, they should have given reasonable time to the petitioner to produce the documents and, in the event of failure of the petitioner to produce the required documents, the eventual step of arrest of the petitioner should have been resorted to. He further contended that despite notice to produce documents, the petitioner was immediately arrested and the prosecution report was submitted on the date of arrest itself before the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh. Therefore, it was contended that the authorities had already determined to implicate the petitioner in the present crime withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e existence of a case under the alleged sections against the present petitioner and his involvement in the alleged crime. He further submitted that the alleged occurrence in the complaint reveals an economic offence of grave magnitude. Thus, he supported the observation of the learned Trial court that the release of the petitioner on bail at this stage would lead to an overwhelming probability of tampering with the prosecution evidence and influencing the witnesses and, that the petitioner might also commit similar offences again. Moreover, considering the gravity and seriousness of the allegation made against the present petitioner and, that the fact that the alleged occurrence gives rise to an economic offence involving huge government revenue, the learned Senior Counsel for the Opposite Party supported the order passed by the learned Trial court whereby the bail application of the petitioner was rejected. 15. In course of his argument, learned senior counsel for the Opposite Party led much emphasis on the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he is having a similar criminal antecedent. The petitioner was earlier arrested on 31.12.2020 in connection with a case of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pectus of the attending circumstances as well as materials on record and, on a careful reading of the judgment cited by both sides, this Court is of the considered view that, so far as the grant of bail to the accused persons is concerned, the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Ratnambar Kaushik s case (supra) and Satendra Kumar Antil s case (supra) holds the field and the same is also applicable to the facts of the present case. Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the above noted two judgments, this Court observes that the maximum period of punishment prescribed is up to 5 years and that the petitioner, at his point, has been in custody for more than four months. It is also seen that the offence alleged is based on documentary evidence and that the investigation has been concluded and the final P.R. has been submitted. In such view of the matter, this Court is persuaded to release the petitioner on bail on stringent terms and conditions. 19. Accordingly, it is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bail bound of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only) with two local solvent sureties each of the like amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
