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>Bail Granted in Tax Fraud Case: Accused Released with Conditions Under Section 439 Cr.P.C. After Thorough Judicial Review</h1> <h3>Praveen Kumar Versus State Of Haryana</h3> Court granted regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for tax and fraud-related offenses. Despite State's opposition citing criminal antecedents, bail was ... Seeking grant of Regular Bail - failure to deposit tax liability - HELD THAT:- No doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pending cases. In such eventuality strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would lend the petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail. Considering the fact that the trial is almost over as only two formal witnesses are to be examined out of total 47 witnesses, as has been stated by learned State counsel and the next date of hearing before the trial Court is 22.01.2024 added with the fact that the trial is at the fag end, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. The petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned - Petition allowed. Issues involved:Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B IPC, Section 132(1)(B), 132(1)(C) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and Section 132(1)(B & C) of Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Details of the Judgment:Issue 1: Jurisdiction and Bail ApplicationThe petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving multiple criminal sections and tax laws. The counsel for the petitioner argued that despite being responsible for tax liability, the petitioner did not deposit the tax despite having information. Issue 2: State's Opposition and Criminal AntecedentsThe State counsel presented the custody certificate of the petitioner, indicating over two years of incarceration. It was argued that the petitioner is a habitual offender involved in multiple cases, and therefore, opposed the bail application.Issue 3: Judicial ConsiderationThe court considered the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the progress of the trial. It noted that while the petitioner's background is relevant for bail consideration, the evaluation of evidence during trial should focus on the specific case at hand. With the trial nearing completion and only two formal witnesses remaining to be examined, the court found no purpose in further detention.Conclusion:After evaluating the submissions and trial progress, the court granted regular bail to the petitioner upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Magistrate. The court clarified that the decision to grant bail does not imply any opinion on the case's merits.This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, addressing the issues involved and the court's decision regarding the grant of regular bail in the specified case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
