Bail Granted to Applicant in CGST Case After Nearly 3 Years in Custody Under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), and (i)

The HC granted bail to the applicant who had been in custody since 10.09.2021 for alleged offenses under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), and (i) of CGST Act, 2017. The Court considered that the self-incriminating statement was potentially obtained under duress, the applicant had closed the offending firms, exercised right of appeal, had no criminal history, and deserved parity with co-accused already granted bail. The bail was granted with conditions including furnishing personal bond with sureties, non-tampering with evidence, non-influencing witnesses, and regular court appearances.

---

---

Issues: Bail application under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), and (i) of CGST Act, 2017; Falsely implicated; Self-implicatory statement under Section 70; Coercion and duress in statement extraction; Closure of offending firms; Right of appeal exercised; Congruency in role with co-accused; No criminal history; Enlargement on bail sought; Cooperation in criminal proceedings; Bail conditions.

In this judgment by the High Court of Allahabad, the applicant had filed a bail application under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), and (i) of the CGST Act, 2017. The applicant had been in jail since 10.09.2021 following the registration of Case Crime No.928 of 2021 at Police Station Kaushambi District Ghaziabad by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) Ghaziabad Regional Unit. The bail application had been previously rejected by the Sessions Judge, Meerut on 28.01.2022.

The applicant, through their counsel, contended that they had been falsely implicated in the case. It was argued that the self-implicatory statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 was extracted by coercion and made under duress, and hence, should not be relied upon to connect the applicant with the alleged crime. It was further mentioned that the applicant had shut down 11 offending firms following due process of law and had exercised the right of appeal, with some appeals still pending. The applicant's counsel highlighted the absence of any criminal history, sought parity in relief with a co-accused, and assured cooperation in the criminal proceedings.

The counsel for the complainant and the State did not satisfactorily dispute the submissions made by the applicant's counsel, acknowledging the lack of criminal history apart from the present case. The Court found merit in the arguments presented by the applicant's counsel and held that the applicant was entitled to be granted bail without making any observations on the merits of the case.

Subsequently, the Court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the lower court. The Court imposed specific conditions on the applicant, including not tampering with evidence, not influencing witnesses, appearing before the trial court as required, and refraining from inducing or threatening any person related to the case. Breach of these conditions would empower the prosecution to move a bail cancellation application before the Court.

---