Bail denied for accused in tobacco smuggling case involving GST evasion worth Rs 15.57 crore under Section 132

HC dismissed regular bail application for accused involved in clandestine procurement and supply of raw tobacco to facilitate unaccounted Jarda manufacture, evading GST/CE duties worth Rs.15,57,28,345. Despite accused being in custody since July 2022, court considered nature and gravity of offence under Section 132 of 2017 Act, which prescribes up to five years imprisonment. Court noted SC precedent in similar GST fraud case and deemed it improper to grant bail given circumstances and amount involved.

---

---

Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 of CrPC for offences under Sections 132(1)(a), (h), (k), and (l) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 132(5) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:
The accused-petitioner, engaged in trading raw tobacco, sought bail contending that the allegations in the remand application were not against him. It was argued that he did not evade duty as he was not a manufacturer and the duty amount was overstated. The defense highlighted that no documents were seized, and the petitioner had been in custody since July 2022, with a long trial expected. The defense also claimed that an employee's statement was coerced, and the petitioner's statement was to be recorded in jail. The defense cited various judgments supporting bail.

The respondent opposed bail, alleging the petitioner's involvement in clandestine procurement and supply of raw tobacco for unaccounted manufacturing, evading substantial duties. Detailed calculations showed the alleged duty evasion amount. The respondent argued that the petitioner was actively involved in facilitating tax evasion, supported by GPS and toll data analysis. The respondent relied on judgments emphasizing the seriousness of economic offenses and the need for a different approach to bail in such cases.

The court noted the gravity of the alleged offense, the substantial amount of duty evasion, and the accused's custody period. Referring to previous judgments, the court highlighted the seriousness of economic offenses and the need to consider various factors in bail decisions. The court dismissed the bail application considering the nature, gravity, and circumstances of the offense, as well as the accused's custody period, leading to the conclusion that bail was not appropriate in this case.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the bail application, considering the significant duty evasion amount, the nature of the offense, and the accused's custody period. The court emphasized the seriousness of economic offenses and the need to carefully evaluate bail applications in such cases.

---