2024 (8) TMI 831 - HC - GST

Bail cancellation upheld after applicant concealed criminal history and prior conviction in economic offense case

The HC dismissed an application challenging the cancellation of bail. The applicant procured bail by misrepresenting and suppressing material facts, ... Grant of bail - whether the bail has been procured by the present applicant by way of misrepresentation and suppression of material facts? - While cancelling the bail of the present applicant, whether the same Court can touch the merit of the case? Grant of bail - whether the bail has been procured by the present applicant by way of misrepresentation and suppression of material facts? - HELD THAT:- One fact is undisputed that earlier the applicant filed a First Bail Application and admittedly, there was no disclosure about the criminal history as well as the fact that he was already convicted in another case of similar nature. About the criminal history and the fact that the applicant was convicted, the detailed objections were filed in the First Bail Application by disclosing the criminal history as well as the fact about the conviction of the present applicant in another case of similar nature. What the applicant has done, instead of filing the response to the objection, the First Bail Application was withdrawn. The most surprising part is that after withdrawal of the First Bail Application, Second Bail Application was preferred just after 5 days; but again he has not disclosed about the criminal history as well as the fact about his conviction in another case of similar nature. This Court is not convinced with the argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, particularly, when the applicant has not approached with clean hands to the trial Court while seeking bail. The question is if he has moved the First Bail Application, wherein the objections were called and the objections were filed by disclosing the criminal history of the applicant, then why he has not pressed the First Bail Application - the present applicant made all possible efforts to procure the bail by misrepresenting as well as by suppressing material facts. Such a conduct of the applicant, seeking regular bail without disclosing the material facts, about the criminal history and the facts about his conviction clearly reveals that he procured the bail by way misrepresentation and in such an eventuality, the same Court was right in cancelling the bail. While cancelling the bail of the present applicant, whether the same Court can touch the merit of the case? - HELD THT:- Now-a-days, the economic offences are serious in nature. Since there are serious allegations against the applicant/accused, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, rightly touched also the merit of the case to examine the seriousness of the allegation. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no any illegality in the order under challenge, particularly when the applicant suppressed the material facts - the argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in cancelling the bail and the same is barred by Section 362 of CrPC, is not acceptable, keeping in view of the seriousness of the allegation. This Court is of the firmed opinion that the learned Sessions Judge rightly cancelled the bail of the applicant. There are no merit in the present Application preferred under Section 482 of CrPC, and the same is, dismissed being devoid of merit. Issues Involved:1. Whether the applicant procured the bail by way of misrepresentation and suppression of material facts.2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge was right in cancelling the bail of the applicant after considering the merits of the case.Detailed Analysis:P1. Procurement of Bail by Misrepresentation and Suppression of Material Facts:The applicant initially filed a First Bail Application without disclosing his criminal history or his prior conviction in a similar case. The objections filed by the department in the First Bail Application revealed the applicant's criminal history and conviction. Instead of responding to these objections, the applicant withdrew the First Bail Application and filed a Second Bail Application five days later, again failing to disclose his criminal history and prior conviction. This conduct indicated that the applicant intentionally and deliberately misrepresented and suppressed material facts to procure bail. The applicant's failure to disclose these facts, despite being aware of them, demonstrated that he obtained bail through misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. Therefore, the Sessions Judge was justified in canceling the bail on these grounds.P2. Cancellation of Bail by the Sessions Judge:The Sessions Judge considered the seriousness of the allegations against the applicant, which involved significant economic offences causing substantial revenue losses to the government. The court noted that economic offences are serious in nature and the applicant's actions had resulted in a loss of over Rs. 20 crores. The court also took into account the applicant's past conduct and the fact that he had threatened witnesses, which indicated a risk of tampering with evidence if released on bail. The court found that the applicant's bail was procured by misrepresentation and suppression of material facts, and given the seriousness of the allegations, it was appropriate to consider the merits of the case while canceling the bail. The Sessions Judge's decision to cancel the bail was not barred by Section 362 of CrPC, as the applicant's conduct and the gravity of the offences justified the cancellation.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC, upholding the Sessions Judge's decision to cancel the bail. The court found that the applicant had deliberately misrepresented and suppressed material facts to obtain bail and that the seriousness of the economic offences warranted the cancellation of bail. The court also noted that the applicant had misused the bail by threatening witnesses, further justifying the cancellation. The application was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.