9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issuing GST invoices without the actual supply of goods or services. This operation is executed in a planned and systematic manner, with an intent to defraud the government exchequer. The Respondent has also been playing an active role in passing of fraudulent ITC. 2.2 At the time of the Respondent's arrest, the total amount of fraudulent ITC generated and passed by him was INR 86.37 crores. However, further investigation and analysis of the evidence gathered determined that the actual quantum of fraudulent ITC passed by the Respondent was approximately INR 280 crores, with the possibility of this amount increasing further. 2.3 The Respondent was arrested on the basis of the evidence obtained from his mobile phone as well as his statement dated 27th January, 2025, in which he admitted to be involved in the availing and passing on of fake/bogus ITC. Furthermore, during a search of the office premises of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, who is also alleged to be involved in the fraudulent billing network, his statement was recorded, in which he confirmed that most of the fake/bogus invoices issued by the fraudulent companies were routed through the Respondent. 2.4 The Respondent was ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied bail to the Respondent. 4. Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, controverts the contentions urged by DGGI. He submits that the second bail application was indeed maintainable, as the proceedings concerning the first bail application were effectively concluded on 15th February, 2025, when the Magistrate reserved the order. Consequently, he argues that the change in circumstances should be assessed from the date the arguments were concluded on the first bail application, i.e., 15th February 2025, and not from the date of pronouncement of the first bail order, i.e., 24th February, 2025, as suggested by the Petitioner. 5. Mr. Mathur further submits that the bail granted to the Respondent should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner, as the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a compelling reason to continue the Respondent's judicial custody, particularly since his statement has already been recorded twice. He argues that there is no perversity in the impugned order, and the allegations made by the Petitioner regarding the legality of the order are unfounded. The only argument the Petitioner has raised for seeking the cancellation of bail, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken. Therefore, even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the accused that in view the guaranty conferred on a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is open to the aggrieved person to make successive bail applications even on a ground already rejected by courts earlier including the Apex Court of the country." [Emphasis Supplied] 8. In the instant case, the CJM, in the first bail application, observed that the investigation is at an initial stage qua the Applicant and the offence is grave and serious in nature. Based on these observations, the CJM dismissed the Respondent's bail application. However, in the subsequent bail application, which was allowed through the impugned order, the CJM observed as under: "Record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at no case diary had been written after 24th February, 2025. The CJM observed that it appeared the Investigating Officer [IO] was merely seeking permission from senior officers for the provisional attachment of the suspected firms under Section 83 of the CGST Act. Pertinently, this same fact-that no investigation had been conducted against the Respondent after 30th January, 2025, and that the IO was only requesting senior officers' permission for provisional attachment-was also prevalent when the arguments in the first bail application were concluded on 15th February, 2025. Therefore, even if the relevant date for assessing the change in circumstances is considered to be 15th February 2025, rather than the date the first bail order was passed, the Court finds no new circumstances that would warrant a decision differing entirely from the one in the first application. 10. While it is undisputed that no further investigation was conducted after the issuance of the first bail order, it was not the case before the CJM that the investigation had been completed, which would have warranted the Respondent's release on bail. The Court finds that there was no material change in circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
