2022 (2) TMI 351 - SC - GST

Bail Granted in GST Evasion Case After 25 Months in Custody-Court Rules Against Indefinite Detention Despite 64 Crore Scheme Allegations

Paresh Nathalal Chauhan Versus The State Of Gujarat & Anr.

The SC granted bail to the appellant in a GST evasion case after 25 months in custody, which constituted nearly 50% of the potential 5-year sentence. ... Seeking grant of Bail - Evasion of GST - question mark on the conduct of the officers who performed the search operations - HELD THAT:- The appellant cannot be indefinitely detained in custody more so having already undergone a period of 25 months of custody when he can be sent behind bars for maximum five years. It is almost 50% of the sentence. The stand of the respondent was also coloured by the proceedings taken out by the appellant/family members qua the conduct of the officers which has visited them with some adverse consequences though certain proceedings are still pending qua the same. Bail granted to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the Trial Court - appeal allowed. Issues: Bail granted to the appellant in a case involving evasion of GST after being in custody for an extended period.Analysis:The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh, granted bail to the appellant in a case related to GST evasion. The appellant had been in custody for 25 months out of a potential 5-year sentence duration. The appellant's counsel emphasized the prolonged detention and the impact of the search operation preceding the proceedings, which was criticized by the High Court. The Court noted that the appellant had already served nearly 50% of the potential sentence and that the investigation was ongoing despite a complaint being filed. The State's argument against bail was based on the appellant's alleged habitual offending behavior and the involvement of other absconding accused in a significant duty evasion amounting to 64 crores.The appellant's counsel highlighted the State's allegation that the appellant played a crucial role in the scam's execution and that further investigation was underway to identify other involved parties. The Court acknowledged the State's concerns but ultimately decided that the appellant should not be detained indefinitely, especially considering the time already spent in custody. The Court also considered the possible bias in the State's stance due to the appellant's legal actions against the officers involved in the search operation. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the appellant, subject to terms and conditions set by the Trial Court. The appellant was cautioned against engaging in similar activities in the future to avoid legal repercussions. The Criminal appeals were allowed, and the appellant was granted bail in light of the circumstances presented during the proceedings.