2020 (6) TMI 161 - HC - GST

Court Grants Bail Without Sureties in Lockdown Red Zone

The court invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to grant bail to the applicant who couldn't provide sureties due to lockdown ... Bail application - applicant could not be released for want of sureties as per the conditions mentioned in the bail order - pandemic COVID-19 situation - HELD THAT:- The applicant, namely, Pradeep Kumar is directed to be released on bail in Case Crime No.- 30 of 2020 (State v. Pradeep Kumar) under Section 132(1)1 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, P.S.- Commissionerate, District- Meerut on his furnishing a personal bond only to the satisfaction of the jail authorities, where the applicant is languishing - It is further provided that this order as well as the bail order available on the official website of the High Court will be taken to be the authentic one. Issues:1. Invocation of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for release on bail due to inability to produce sureties.2. Impact of lockdown on arranging sureties for bail.3. Application of judgment in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 564 of 2020 regarding release on bail without sureties.4. Direction for release on bail with a personal bond and subsequent requirement of sureties.5. Provision for cancellation of bail if sureties are not furnished within a specified period.6. Instructions regarding the applicant's conduct post-release and cooperation with authorities.Analysis:1. The judgment involves the invocation of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the release on bail of the applicant due to the inability to produce sureties as mandated by the bail order issued by the court below. The applicant sought relief citing the designation of Meerut district as a 'Red Zone' due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which hindered the production of sureties.2. The impact of the lockdown on arranging sureties for bail was a crucial aspect considered in the judgment. The learned counsel for the applicant highlighted the challenges faced in producing sureties due to the lockdown situation, which was exacerbated by the district being classified as a 'Red Zone.' This situation led to the applicant's continued detention despite the bail order.3. The judgment referenced a Division Bench's decision in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 564 of 2020, which directed the release of accused-applicants who had been granted bail but were unable to secure release due to the unavailability of sureties during the lockdown period. This directive was based on the exercise of powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to address the difficulties arising from the lockdown restrictions.4. The court ordered the release of the applicant on bail in connection with Case Crime No.- 30 of 2020 under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, with the condition of furnishing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the jail authorities. This decision aligned with the principles outlined in the PIL judgment regarding the release on bail without the immediate requirement of sureties during the lockdown period.5. To ensure compliance with the bail conditions, the judgment specified a timeframe within which the applicant must furnish two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court. Failure to meet this requirement within four weeks from the lifting of the complete lockdown in the district would result in the cancellation of the bail, necessitating the applicant's surrender.6. Additionally, the judgment included instructions regarding the applicant's conduct post-release, emphasizing the importance of not misusing the liberty of bail and cooperating with the police, investigating agency, or trial proceedings as applicable. The Office of the Government Advocate was directed to promptly inform the relevant authorities about the release order for necessary action and monitoring.