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>Supreme Judicial Review Modifies Bail Order, Imposes Investigative Restrictions and Financial Conditions for Respondents</h1> <h3>UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Versus HARDEEP SINGH BANGA & ORS.</h3> SC modified HC's anticipatory bail order in criminal case. Respondents directed to participate in in-person enquiries, with one exception for elderly ... Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - Online interrogation by the proper officer - section 70 of GST Act - HELD THAT:- The impugned order passed by the High Court deserves to be partly modified in the following terms: (i) Respondent Nos.1-7 (except respondent No.2, who is stated to be 92 years’ old) will join the enquiries-cuminvestigation in-person as and when required; (ii) If respondent No.2 is also required to join enquiry, it is directed that keeping in view his age, he shall be permitted to do so through online mode as already directed by the High Court; (iii) Respondent Nos.1-7 undertake not to seek refund of Rs.28 crores from the appellants pending enquiry under Section 70(1) of the GST Act, and the refund of the said amount will depend upon the final outcome of the abovestated enquiry; (iv) For the balance amount of Rs.6 crores, respondent Nos.1-7 shall execute an indemnity bond within two weeks. Appeal disposed off. Issues:Impugned order by High Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10383 of 2021.Analysis:1. Impugned Order Modification: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against the impugned order passed by the High Court. The High Court had granted anticipatory bail to the respondents with certain conditions, including online interrogation availability and prohibition on inducement or threats. After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court modified the High Court's order. Respondent Nos. 1-7 were directed to join in-person enquiries, except for respondent No. 2, who could participate online due to being 92 years old. Additionally, respondent Nos. 1-7 were barred from seeking a refund of Rs.28 crores pending investigation under the GST Act, and they were required to execute an indemnity bond for the remaining Rs.6 crores within two weeks.2. Legal Representation: The legal representation in the case included Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, ASG, and a team of advocates for the appellants, while Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv., and a group of advocates represented respondent Nos. 1-7. The Court considered the arguments presented by both sides before issuing the modified order.3. Disposition of the Appeal: The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal based on the modifications made to the High Court's order. The Court's decision also led to the disposal of any pending interlocutory applications related to the case. The judgment clarified the revised terms and conditions for the respondents' anticipatory bail, emphasizing compliance with the new directives.In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment addressed the issues arising from the High Court's order regarding anticipatory bail, modifying the conditions for the respondents and ensuring compliance with specific directives related to the investigation and refund amounts. The legal representation on both sides presented their arguments, leading to the disposal of the appeal and related interlocutory applications.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
