2024 (1) TMI 374 - DSC - GST

Accused granted bail after full cooperation with investigation, evidence seizure prevents tampering concerns

Mahesh Bhimrao Patil Versus Principal Commissioner / Commissioner of GST

Mahesh Bhimrao Patil Versus Principal Commissioner / Commissioner of GST - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the arrest procedure under CGST Act.2. Prima facie case against the accused.3. Compliance with procedural safeguards as per Cr.P.C.4. Risk of tampering with evidence or absconding.5. Conditions for granting bail.Summary:Legality of the Arrest Procedure under CGST Act:The accused argued that the arrest was not conducted as per the due procedure of law. He contended that he had not committed any of the alleged offences under Section 132(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, and was merely an employee without any significant role in the company's transactions. The arrest memo was claimed to be erroneous and not in accordance with legal provisions.Prima Facie Case Against the Accused:The advocate for the accused argued that the remand application lacked specific reasons and failed to establish a prima facie case. The accused had cooperated with the investigation, provided his official laptop and bank data, and there was no evidence of non-cooperation. The prosecution was accused of not issuing a show cause notice or intimating a statement of tax ascertainment to the accused.Compliance with Procedural Safeguards as per Cr.P.C.:The accused cited the judgments in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI, which mandate compliance with Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C. for arrests. It was argued that the accused, having complied with the notices for appearance, should not have been arrested. The principle that 'Bail is rule and jail is exception' was emphasized.Risk of Tampering with Evidence or Absconding:The prosecution opposed the bail application, arguing that the accused had a substantial role in the company's transactions and could tamper with evidence or abscond. The prosecution cited several judgments to support their stance that the accused should not be granted bail due to the severity of the offence and the risk involved.Conditions for Granting Bail:The court noted that the accused had been in judicial custody since 12/12/2023, had cooperated with the investigation, and had provided all necessary data to the investigating officer. The court found no substantial risk of tampering with evidence or absconding. It was observed that the accused's personal liberty could not be curtailed for tax recovery or securing his presence, provided he complied with certain conditions.Order:1. The accused Mahesh Bhimrao Patil is released on bail on furnishing PB and SB of Rs.10,00,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.2. The accused is provisionally released on furnishing cash bail of Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of surety for ten days.3. The accused must furnish proof of residence in Mumbai.4. Permission from the court is required for the accused to travel abroad or outside Maharashtra.5. The accused must not tamper with prosecution evidence or pressurize witnesses and must cooperate with further investigation.6. The accused must provide verified copies of his photo identity proof and residence proof.7. The accused must attend the complainant's office every Tuesday and Saturday between 11.00 A.M. to 2.00 P.M. until the charge-sheet is filed.8. The accused must attend the complainant's office as and when required.9. The accused must produce photographs, mobile number, and address proof of himself, his sureties, and two blood relatives.10. Breach of any conditions will be grounds for cancellation of bail.