Court Orders Affidavits in Bail Case; Stay on Cancellation Pending Evidence Review

The court directed attested affidavits to be filed within two weeks, disposing of the application regarding exemption from filing attested affidavits. In a case challenging the cancellation of bail due to alleged fraudulent ITC claims, discrepancies in the amount of fraudulent ITC were noted. The court stayed the bail cancellation order and deferred the non-bailable warrants, as evidence of the entire availed ITC being fraudulent was lacking. Deadlines were set for filing affidavits by both parties, and the order was to be uploaded on the court's website for public access.

---

---

Issues:
1. Exemption from filing attested affidavits
2. Impugning the order seeking cancellation of bail
3. Allegations of fraudulent ITC claims and bail cancellation

Exemption from filing attested affidavits:
In CRL.M.A. 10706/2021, the court directed attested affidavits to be filed within two weeks, disposing of the application. This issue primarily pertained to procedural requirements in the case.

Impugning the order seeking cancellation of bail:
In W.P.(CRL) 1267/2021 and CRL.M.A. 10704/2021, the petitioner challenged the order seeking cancellation of bail granted earlier. The respondent alleged that the petitioner had availed fraudulent ITC worth crores. The petitioner complied with the bail conditions by submitting cash and debiting ITC ledgers. However, the respondent later claimed the ITC ledgers were questionable, leading to the bail cancellation and issuance of non-bailable warrants. The court noted discrepancies in the amount of alleged fraudulent ITC and stayed the order, keeping the warrants in abeyance. Affidavits were ordered to be filed within specific timelines for further proceedings.

Allegations of fraudulent ITC claims and bail cancellation:
The respondent accused the petitioner of availing ineligible ITCs amounting to crores through different companies. While the respondent claimed fraudulent ITCs worth 27.05 crores, the total availed ITCs were significantly higher. The court observed that the respondent lacked evidence of the entire availed ITC being fraudulent. Consequently, the court stayed the order and deferred the non-bailable warrants. The case was scheduled for further proceedings, with deadlines set for filing affidavits by both parties. The order was to be uploaded on the court's website for public access.

---