2023 (10) TMI 1443 - HC - GST

Bail granted for applicant charged under Sections 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of Central GST Act 2017

The Allahabad HC granted bail to an applicant charged under Sections 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The applicant ... Seeking grant of bail - offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - it is submitted that the applicant has been arrested without assigning any reason to believe nor any satisfaction to justified his arrest as provided in the Code - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR VERSUS BALCHAND @ BALIAY [1977 (9) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT], GUDIKANTI NARASIMHULU AND ORS. VERSUS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [1977 (12) TMI 143 - SUPREME COURT], RAM GOVIND UPADHYAY VERSUS SUDARSHAN SINGH AND ORS. [2002 (3) TMI 945 - SUPREME COURT], PRASANTA KUMAR SARKAR VERSUS ASHIS CHATTERJEE AND ORS. [2010 (10) TMI 1199 - SUPREME COURT] and MAHIPAL VERSUS RAJESH KUMAR @ POLIA & ANR. [2019 (12) TMI 1461 - SUPREME COURT], the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, it is opined that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed, subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed. Issues:Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.Analysis:The bail application was filed on behalf of the applicant seeking release in a case for offences under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The applicant claimed innocence and false implication, arguing that he was arrested without proper justification or notice for recovery of G.S.T. The applicant relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in a similar case to support his submission. The applicant had been on interim bail since a specific date. The applicant's counsel emphasized the definition of 'custody' as per Black's Law Dictionary to argue that the applicant was still in custody despite appearing before the trial court on every date.The opposing party, however, supported the Session court's order and opposed the grant of bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations. The court considered various factors, including the nature of the accusation, evidence, severity of punishment, the accused's character, and involvement in other cases. Referring to previous judgments, the court found it a fit case for bail, emphasizing the larger interest of the public and the State. The bail was granted with specific conditions to ensure the applicant's compliance and prevent any misuse of liberty.The court directed the release of the applicant on bail upon fulfilling the specified conditions, including furnishing a personal bond and sureties, not influencing witnesses, attending court proceedings, and refraining from criminal activities. Breach of these conditions could lead to bail cancellation. The trial court was instructed to expedite the trial process after the applicant's release, maintaining independence in arriving at conclusions based on evidence. The order's observations were limited to the bail application's determination and not a reflection on the case's merits.Additionally, the party was required to file a computer-generated copy of the order from the High Court's official website, self-attested with an identity proof, for verification by the concerned authorities. Verification of the order's authenticity was mandated before further proceedings.