TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Accused granted bail under CGST Act for lack of criminal history & pandemic delay concerns</h1> <h3>Shailesh Chandra Versus DGGI Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur (Union Of India) and State Of Raj., Through Pp</h3> The High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 132(1)(C)(F)(h) and (1) of the ... Seeking grant of Bail - offences compoundable and are triable by Magistrate or not - offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(C) (F)(h) and (1) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the fact that conclusion of the proceedings is likely to take some time and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. It is directed that petitioner Shailesh Chandra S/o Shri Om Prakash Chandra shall be released on bail - Bail application allowed. Issues involved: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 132(1)(C)(F)(h) and (1) of CGST Act, 2017.Analysis:The High Court of Rajasthan, in light of the second surge in COVID-19 cases, maintained caution during court proceedings. The petitioner had been arrested in connection with offences under Sections 132(1)(C)(F)(h) and (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner, through his counsel, contended that the alleged offences are compoundable and triable by a Magistrate. It was highlighted that the petitioner had no prior criminal antecedents and had been in custody since 30.08.2021.The counsel for the Union of India and the Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. However, the Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and acknowledging that the proceedings might take time to conclude, granted bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Court clarified that this decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the Court directed the release of the petitioner on bail. The petitioner was required to execute a personal bond of &8377; 50,000/- with two sureties of &8377; 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court. This bond was necessary to ensure the petitioner's appearance before the court on all hearing dates and whenever required until the completion of the trial.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
