2024 (5) TMI 245 - HC - GST

Petition to Quash Bail Dismissed: No Supervening Circumstances Found, Co-Accused's Bail Unchallenged, Ensuring Fair Trial.

The HC dismissed the State's petition under Section 439(2) CrPC to quash the bail order granted to the respondent by the District & Sessions Judge. The ... Grant of Regular Bail - bogus documents created in the form of e-way bills, though, no actual transaction had taken place - HELD THAT:- This Court finds no circumstances, more particular, when the co-accused is granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and such order has remained un-challenged, till date, to adjudge the impugned order as unjust and contrary to the settled principles of law. As held earlier, the petitioner has failed to point out supervening circumstances, which may interfere with the fair trial. Reference made to the observations made in the recent decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of KEKHRIESATUO TEP ETC. VERSUS NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [2023 (4) TMI 1320 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that 'the learned Special Judge has himself distinguished cases of the persons who have indulged into extortion for furthering the activities of the organization and the persons like the present appellants, who were government servants, and compelled to contribute the amount. We, therefore, find that it cannot be said that the prima facie opinion, as expressed by the learned Special Judge, could be said to be perverse or impossible.' The present petition fails and stands dismissed. Issues:The petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order granting bail to the respondent.Summary:The petitioner State filed a petition to quash the order granting bail to the respondent by the District & Sessions Judge. The petitioner argued that bail should be cancelled due to the failure of the Court to consider relevant factors and supervening circumstances. The petitioner alleged a scam involving bogus documents and a significant amount of money. However, no supervening circumstances affecting a fair trial were presented.On the other hand, the respondent's advocate supported the bail order, citing a similar case where a co-accused was granted bail by the same Court, which remained unchallenged. The Court found no unjust circumstances in the bail order, especially when a co-accused had been granted bail previously without challenge. The absence of any supervening circumstances affecting a fair trial led to the dismissal of the petition.Additionally, the Court referred to a recent decision by the Apex Court regarding distinguishing cases of individuals contributing to criminal activities voluntarily versus those compelled to do so. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the bail order and dismissed the petition.