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>Second bail application dismissed for repeating identical grounds without new facts or changed circumstances</h1> <h3>Mr. Aftab Mumtaj Rehmani Versus State of Maharashtra and another</h3> The Pune DC dismissed a second bail application filed within six days of the first rejection. The accused, charged with GST evasion through fake invoices ... Maintainability of second bail application - Seeking grant of bail - availment of wrongful ITC - outward supply by issuing fake invoices - HELD THAT:- Same grounds are repeated in the second bail application. The Judgments cited on behalf of the applicant while deciding the previous bail application are being pressed in while supporting the second bail application. Factually, no new grounds or facts warranting consideration of second bail application are mentioned in the application. There is no material change in the circumstances and therefore, the present bail application is not maintainable. Merely because the accused continue to be in custody after rejection of previous bail application, the second bail application filed within six days of rejection of previous bail application without any new grounds, cannot be said it to be maintainable. The learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in TASNEEM RIZWAN SIDDIQUEE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [2018 (3) TMI 1690 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] to support his contention that bail has to be granted for non compliance of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. I however, find that no such proposition is laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cited Judgment. In fact, release of petitioner's husband from custody was directed in habeas corpus petition on finding that the arrest of the petitioner's husband was made prior to the date fixed for appearance by notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. In the absence of any changed circumstances and in view of the fact that prima facie case is made out for alleged GST evasion of a high magnitude on the part of the applicant and as the investigation is still underway, the applicant cannot be released on bail - bail application dismissed. Issues:Second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Compliance with guidelines, noncompliance with Section 41A of Cr.P.C., arrest without notice, GST evasion allegations, maintainability of second bail application, change in circumstances, impact of previous rejection, necessity of release on bail, influence on investigation and witnesses.Detailed Analysis:1. Second Bail Application: The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. after the rejection of the first bail application. The applicant argued that each day of confinement constitutes a change in circumstances warranting a fresh bail application.2. Compliance with Guidelines: The applicant contended noncompliance with guidelines issued by the Apex Court and failure to follow the procedure under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. The applicant highlighted the importance of adherence to these guidelines for a fair legal process.3. Arrest Without Notice: The applicant was arrested without prior notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., raising concerns about the legality of the arrest process and the necessity of following due procedure.4. GST Evasion Allegations: The opponent alleged significant GST evasion by the applicant through various fraudulent activities, including issuing fake invoices and availing wrongful Input Tax Credit, emphasizing the seriousness of the financial misconduct.5. Maintainability of Second Bail Application: The Special Public Prosecutor argued that the second bail application lacked new grounds or changed circumstances, making it not maintainable. The opponent emphasized the similarity between the first and second bail applications.6. Change in Circumstances: The Court examined whether there was a substantial change in circumstances justifying the consideration of the second bail application. The Court referred to relevant judgments to determine the criteria for evaluating changed circumstances in successive bail applications.7. Impact of Previous Rejection: The Court reviewed the grounds of the earlier rejected bail application and found that the same grounds were repeated in the second application. The Court emphasized the need for fresh grounds or material changes to warrant a new bail application.8. Necessity of Release on Bail: The applicant argued for the necessity of bail due to noncompliance with legal guidelines and previous court decisions. However, the Court found no significant change in circumstances or new grounds to justify the release on bail.9. Influence on Investigation and Witnesses: The opponent raised concerns that releasing the applicant on bail could hamper the ongoing investigation and influence witnesses, highlighting the potential risks associated with granting bail.10. Conclusion: Considering the lack of changed circumstances, the seriousness of the alleged GST evasion, and the ongoing investigation, the Court rejected the second bail application, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal procedures and evaluating fresh grounds for bail consideration.This comprehensive analysis covers the key issues involved in the judgment, providing detailed insights into the legal arguments and considerations made by the Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
