High Court Grants Bail to Accused in GST Act Offence Citing No Criminal History and Extended Detention.

The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed by the HC for the accused-petitioner involved in alleged offences under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Despite opposition citing economic offence severity, the Court considered the absence of criminal antecedents, prolonged custody, and precedent from the SC, granting bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties.

---

---

Issues: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with alleged offences under Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The bail application was filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in relation to a case registered at the Office of the Additional Directorate General, DGGI Zonal Office, Jaipur, for offences under Sections 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(k) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and read with Section 132(5). The petitioner, Mohit, was employed in the firm of two other individuals named Rajat and Ishu, who were also implicated in the case. However, Rajat and Ishu were released on bail as the charge-sheet against them was not filed in time. The petitioner had been in custody since a specific date, with exceptions for a few days. The maximum punishment for the alleged offence did not exceed 5 years of imprisonment and fine, and the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. The petitioner relied on a judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India, emphasizing the completion of investigation, potential trial duration, and the nature of evidence in the case.

The learned counsel for the Union of India vehemently opposed the bail application, citing the creation of 73 fake firms without any goods transactions, resulting in a significant Input Tax Credit (ITC) amount. It was argued that due to the gravity of the offences, bail should not be granted in economic offence matters. However, after considering the arguments from both sides, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner had been in custody while the other accused had been granted bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The absence of criminal antecedents, the nature of the alleged offence, and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in a similar case were considered. The Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, deemed it just and proper to grant bail to the petitioner.

Consequently, the bail application was allowed, and the accused-petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Judge for his appearance on all hearing dates.

---