2021 (9) TMI 819 - HC - GST

Court upholds anticipatory bail order, emphasizing personal liberty protection. No grounds for intervention.

Superintendent Of Central Tax Bangalore South Commissionerate Versus Syed Sardar Pasha

The court upheld the order granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., emphasizing the importance of protecting personal liberty under ... Seeking grant of Bail - alleged offences under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 r/w Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1994 and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- Though, the petition is slated for removing of office objection, but challenging the impugned order passed by the court below only for granting of bail by allowing the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., by imposing certain conditions and the court below has been exercising discretionary power. In this petition, it does not call for intervention for setting aside the impugned order passed by the court below and even does not arise for issuance of notice against the respondent-Syed Sardar Pasha who is arrayed as petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.5875/2019 filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. - Petition disposed off. Issues:Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. against apprehension of arrest by Central Tax Authority for alleged offenses under various tax laws. Challenge to the order granting bail by the Superintendent of Central Tax, seeking setting aside of the order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Jurisdiction of the court to exercise discretionary power under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in protecting personal liberty.Analysis:The petition was initiated by the Superintendent of Central Tax against the respondent, seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. due to the apprehension of arrest by the Central Tax Authority for alleged offenses under tax laws. The court of Civil and Sessions Judge had previously allowed the petition and imposed certain conditions in Crl.Misc.No.5875/2019. The petitioner then challenged this order, urging various grounds to set it aside. The court emphasized that unless there is a violation of conditions, there is no basis for intervention under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or any other provision of law. The discretionary power of the court must be exercised with care to protect personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Subsequently, the court clarified that in this case, there was no need for intervention to set aside the order granting bail. The petition was primarily aimed at removing office objections and challenging the order passed by the court below for granting bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The court highlighted that the lower court had appropriately exercised its discretionary power in granting bail and that there was no violation of conditions or disobedience of the order. Therefore, the court found no grounds for setting aside the impugned order.In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition, stating that there was no need for intervention to set aside the order granting bail. The petitioner was reserved the liberty to proceed further against the respondent in accordance with the law if there were any violations of the conditions imposed by the court below. The judgment emphasized the importance of protecting personal liberty while considering the exercise of discretionary powers by the court.