2024 (1) TMI 975 - HC - GST

Accused Granted Bail After Four Months in Custody Under IPC and CGST Act, Release Ordered on Procedural Grounds

Adwait Gupta @ Monu Versus State of Haryana

HC granted regular bail to petitioner charged under IPC and CGST Act after four months of custody. Court considered investigation was complete, final ... Seeking grant of regular bail - issue of fake and fictitious invoices - evasion of tax by doing business only on paper - present petitioner submits that final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been presented by the police - HELD THAT:- As per the record, the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 26.08.2023 and is behind the bars for the last about 04 months. Final report has already been presented before the Competent Court. Even three more cases were ordered to be registered against the present petitioner. However, the petitioner is on bail in all the cases registered against him and in the considered opinion of the Court, further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. Without commenting any further on the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the invocation of provisions of the Indian Penal Code in relation to alleged tax evasion and issuance of fictitious invoices was appropriate when offences also fall under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Whether the petitioner, arrested and in custody for approximately four months, is entitled to regular bail where (a) the investigation is complete and a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed, (b) the alleged offences are primarily documentary in nature, and (c) the petitioner is on bail in other related matters. 3. Whether further custody of the petitioner would serve any meaningful investigative purpose in light of the above facts. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Appropriateness of invoking IPC provisions versus Special Statute (CGST, 2017) Legal framework: Offences under a Special Statute such as the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are typically governed by the provisions of that statute; parallel or consequential invocation of general penal provisions (IPC) may be subject to scrutiny where the Special Statute provides the relevant penal regime. Precedent Treatment: The judgment record does not cite or apply any precedents addressing conflict or primacy between CGST and IPC provisions in this matter. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted the submission of counsel that the police had invoked IPC provisions though the case would be governed by the CGST statute. The Court recorded this contention but did not undertake a determination on the legal propriety of invoking IPC provisions; no express finding was made on whether IPC offences were rightly or wrongly applied. Ratio vs. Obiter: The Court's treatment of this point is obiter. While the issue was raised and noted, the Court did not decide the legal question of whether the CGST statute exclusively precludes IPC invocation; thus no binding ratio is established on that specific legal conflict. Conclusion: The Court did not decide the correctness of invoking IPC provisions and proceeded to dispose of the bail application on other grounds. The question remains unresolved in this judgment. Issue 2 - Entitlement to regular bail where investigation is complete, evidence documentary, and petitioner on bail in related matters Legal framework: Section 439 Cr.P.C. permits High Court/Session Court discretion to grant regular bail. Relevant considerations include duration of custody, stage of investigation/prosecution (including filing of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.), nature of allegations (documentary vs. custodial interrogation needs), whether accused is on bail in connected matters, and whether continued detention would serve any useful purpose. Precedent Treatment: No precedents were cited or applied in the record; the Court applied standard judicial principles regarding bail having regard to the state of investigation and utility of custody. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed (a) the petitioner had been in custody for about four months, (b) the police had completed their investigation and a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. had been presented, (c) the allegations were documentary in nature and relevant documents had been collected by police, and (d) the petitioner was already on bail in three other cases ordered to be registered against him. The Court reasoned that, given completion of the investigation and the documentary character of allegations, further custody would not be necessary to advance investigation or secure evidence. Ratio vs. Obiter: The conclusion that continued custody was unnecessary and that bail should be granted on the described facts is ratio for bail determination in this case. The observations regarding documentary evidence and lack of meaningful purpose for further custody form the operative reasoning supporting the bail order. Conclusion: The Court exercised discretion under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to grant regular bail, finding that the combination of completed investigation, filing of the final report, documentary nature of the case, and existing bail in related matters made further custody unnecessary. Issue 3 - Whether further custody would serve any meaningful investigative purpose Legal framework: Continued detention must be justified by demonstrable need for custodial interrogation, prevention of tampering with evidence, risk of absconding, or other investigative exigencies; absent such needs, custody should not be prolonged. Precedent Treatment: The Court did not cite case law but applied well-established bail principles about the purposefulness of detention. Interpretation and reasoning: Relying on the facts that the investigation was complete, documentary evidence had been collected, a final report had been filed, and the petitioner was on bail in related matters, the Court concluded that further detention would not advance any investigatory objective. The Court explicitly found that 'further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose.' Ratio vs. Obiter: This finding is part of the operative ratio justifying bail in the present proceedings. Conclusion: The Court concluded that continued custody was not justified and ordered release on bail upon furnishing appropriate bonds/sureties to the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM. Additional Procedural/Relief Conclusion Legal framework: Grant of bail conditioned on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds is within the Court's bail powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Interpretation and reasoning: Without adjudicating merits of the underlying allegations, the Court granted regular bail subject to the usual condition of furnishing bonds/sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM. Ratio vs. Obiter: The order to release on bail upon furnishing bonds is ratio as the operative relief granted. Conclusion: The petitioner was ordered released on bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the competent judicial authority; no further directions or observations on guilt or the merits were made.