Reasonable bail conditions in GST prosecution upheld where monetary safeguards protected attendance and investigation in a serious economic offence.
Heavy surety and bank guarantee conditions attached to bail in a GST prosecution were treated as permissible where the allegations involved a serious economic offence and a need to secure the accused's attendance and protect the investigation. The court noted that the petitioner had withdrawn an earlier revision before the Sessions Court and that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to bypass the ordinary statutory remedy. Because the impugned bail order was detailed, reasoned, and aimed at safeguarding the proceedings, the conditions were not found onerous, arbitrary, or illegal, and no interference was warranted.
Issues: Whether the bail conditions requiring a heavy surety and bank guarantee or FDR, imposed while granting bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a GST prosecution, were onerous or arbitrary and liable to be interfered with in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The application was founded on the plea that the monetary conditions attached to bail were too stringent. The Court noted that the petitioner had already availed a revision before the Sessions Court but withdrew it, and that Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not meant to bypass the proper remedy provided by law. On merits, the Court held that the conditions were justified in view of the seriousness of the alleged economic offence, the magnitude of the alleged fraudulent input tax credit, and the need to secure attendance and prevent interference with the investigation or trial. The Court also relied on the fact that a co-accused had earlier challenged similar conditions unsuccessfully and that the impugned order was detailed and well reasoned.
Conclusion: The conditions imposed on bail were not found to be onerous, arbitrary, or illegal, and no interference was warranted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the bail conditions failed, and the order imposing the impugned conditions remained undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction will not ordinarily be used to interfere with bail conditions that are reasonably imposed to secure attendance and protect the investigation in a serious economic offence, especially where an available statutory remedy was not pursued.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
