2022 (4) TMI 247 - HC - GST

Petitioner Granted Bail in GST Case After Prolonged Trial Delay and Similar Bail Approvals for Co-accused Including Kingpin

The HC granted bail to the petitioner in a GST case where trial had stalled due to pending challenges to the Haryana GST Act in a Division Bench. Despite ... Seeking grant of Bail - fake transactions by floating bogus firms - framing of charges, not done - non-proceeding with the trial - offences punishable under section 132 of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In the facts and circumstances as enumerated, since the charges have also not yet been framed and the trial has not been proceeding in view of the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court in TARUN BASSI VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. [2020 (6) TMI 728 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner as the trial will take considerable time to conclude and his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. In the case of TARUN BASSI, the trial Court has been directed to adjourn the case beyond the date fixed before that Court. The petitioner be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned - petition is allowed. Issues: Bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in a GST case.Analysis:- The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C in a case related to the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had filed a short affidavit regarding their health condition, which was taken on record by the court.- This was the petitioner's second petition for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C, with the previous one having been withdrawn earlier.- The petitioner's counsel argued that the trial had come to a standstill due to challenges against certain sections of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in a Division Bench. The counsel highlighted that other co-accused had been granted bail, and further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any purpose.- The State counsel did not dispute that the trial had stalled due to interim orders from the Division Bench. They mentioned that charges had not yet been framed but alleged that the petitioner, along with the co-accused, had caused a significant loss to the state exchequer through fake transactions.- The State counsel acknowledged that the alleged kingpin of the scam had been released on bail but argued that the petitioner had not been in custody for as long. However, they could not refute the claim that the petitioner was not involved in any other criminal case of a similar nature.- After considering the circumstances, including the delay in trial proceedings and lack of charges being framed, the court granted bail to the petitioner. The court noted that the trial was expected to take considerable time to conclude, and further incarceration would not be beneficial. The bail was subject to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Magistrate, with a clarification that the decision did not reflect an opinion on the case's merits.