Bail conditions cannot be used to recover disputed tax dues; onerous payment terms were struck down to protect personal liberty.

A bail condition under the Haryana GST framework requiring deposit of the alleged tax liability was treated as a recovery measure rather than a legitimate condition securing appearance. The court noted that the statute already provides separate mechanisms for arrest, prosecution, adjudication, interest, penalty and provisional attachment, so revenue protection did not justify compelling payment of a disputed amount at the bail stage. After investigation was complete and the complaint filed, the condition was found unreasonable and contrary to Article 21 personal liberty. The payment condition was set aside and the bond requirement was modified to a lower amount with one surety in immoveable property.

---

---

Issues: Whether a bail order under the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could validly impose a condition requiring the accused to deposit the alleged tax liability along with interest, and whether such condition was so onerous as to warrant interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The condition directing deposit of the alleged liability operated as a recovery measure rather than a bail condition. The statutory scheme under Sections 69, 132, 134, 74 and 83 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides separate mechanisms for arrest, prosecution, adjudication, interest, penalty and provisional attachment, and therefore the State was not left without remedies for recovery or protection of revenue. Once investigation was complete and the complaint had been filed, continued incarceration on account of a condition compelling payment of the disputed amount was found to be unreasonable and violative of the petitioner's personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The condition was held to be contrary to the settled principle that bail is to secure appearance and not to effect recovery or impose pre-conviction punishment.

Conclusion: The condition requiring payment of Rs. 1,94,78,017/- along with interest was set aside, and the bail bond condition was modified by reducing the bond amount to Rs. 25 lakhs with one surety in immoveable property.

Ratio Decidendi: A bail order cannot be used as a device for recovery of disputed tax dues, and any condition that becomes punitive or unduly onerous so as to defeat personal liberty is liable to be struck down.

---