2021 (3) TMI 1218 - HC - GST

Court grants bail in CGST Act case despite Department's opposition, citing documentary evidence, no tampering risk, co-accused on bail.

Shiv Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Chokh Ram Sharma Versus Union of India, Through Superintendent Anti-Evasion CGST And Central Excise Commissionerate Jaipur NCRB

The court granted bail to the petitioner in a case involving offences under the CGST Act. Despite opposition from the Department, the court found merit in ... Seeking grant of Bail - petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this matter and co-accused who is Managing Director of the Company and Beneficiary has already been released on bail - HELD THAT:- This petition deserves to be allowed for the reasons, firstly, the petitioner is a senior citizen and he is in custody for last about five months and secondly, all the evidence is documentary in nature and there is no apprehension shown by the prosecution about the accused petitioner of tempering with the evidence/witnesses and thirdly, the co-accused has already been released on bail. Bail granted - application allowed. Issues:Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 132(1)(b) & (c) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 132(1)(i) and sub-section (5) of the Act.Analysis:The petitioner filed a second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with a case registered at CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur, for offences under the CGST Act. The petitioner, a senior citizen, had been in custody for about five months. The counsel argued that the petitioner had been falsely implicated, highlighting that the co-accused, the Managing Director of the Company, had already been granted bail. It was emphasized that the maximum sentence for the alleged offence was five years, potentially reducible to six months. The petitioner's custody since October 2020 and the expected lengthy trial duration were brought to the court's attention.The Department, represented by counsel for the Union of India, vehemently opposed the bail application. However, after considering the material on record and the circumstances of the case, the court found merit in granting bail. The court noted that the evidence was primarily documentary, with no indication from the prosecution of any risk of evidence tampering by the petitioner. Additionally, the fact that the co-accused had already been released on bail was a factor in favor of granting bail to the petitioner. The court clarified that the decision to grant bail did not reflect an opinion on the case's merits. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted regular bail, subject to the trial court's satisfaction. The office was instructed to send a copy of the order to the trial court for necessary compliance via e-mail/fax.