Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioners, accused of offences under the GST enactments and in custody after completion of investigation, were entitled to bail pending trial.
Analysis: The allegations were serious, but conviction could only follow proof in accordance with law. The petitioners had remained in custody since 21.07.2021, the investigation qua them stood completed, and the complaint had already been filed. The maximum punishment prescribed was imprisonment up to five years with fine. The record showed that recoveries and seizures, including electronic records, had already been made, and no further recovery was shown to be necessary. The Court also noted that prolonged pre-trial incarceration should not become a matter of rule and that the presumption of innocence remained applicable. The apprehensions regarding possible interference with the ongoing investigation against other persons could be addressed by suitable bail conditions, and no previous criminal history was shown.
Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to bail, subject to conditions safeguarding appearance, non-interference with evidence, surrender of passports, and restriction on travel abroad.
Ratio Decidendi: Where investigation is complete, necessary recoveries are already secured, and continued custody would amount to prolonged pre-trial incarceration, bail may be granted even in serious fiscal offences, subject to conditions ensuring the integrity of the trial and investigation.