2025 (2) TMI 468 - HC - GST

Petitioner granted regular bail in GST embezzlement case citing prolonged trial delays and fundamental right to liberty

Punjab and Haryana HC granted regular bail to petitioner charged with GST embezzlement. Court applied principle that no one should be considered guilty ... Seeking grant of Regular bail - no assessment of alleged embezzlement of GST committed by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- As per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another [2018 (2) TMI 410 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an exception. This Court is conscious of the fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Conclusion - The petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. Petition allowed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court considered a petition filed under Section 483 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the grant of regular bail in a case registered under Section 132 of the Act. The main issue before the Court was whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the specific procedure under the Act and the allegations against the petitioner.The petitioner argued that the FIR lodged against them would amount to double jeopardy as no notice under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act was given, and there was no assessment of the alleged embezzlement of GST committed by the petitioner. The State, on the other hand, opposed the bail plea, stating that the petitioner's release could influence others, and highlighted the significant amount of alleged evasion and ongoing investigations.The Court, following the principle of criminal jurisprudence, emphasized the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. It cited a judgment of the Apex Court in 'Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another,' which emphasized that bail is the general rule, and incarceration is the exception. The Court stressed the need for a humane approach in deciding on bail applications, considering factors such as the accused's cooperation with investigations, past criminal record, and socio-economic status.The Court also highlighted the importance of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the need to minimize the pre-conviction period for under-trials. It referred to a previous order in a similar case, emphasizing that bail decisions should focus on the evidence in the specific case rather than considering other pending cases involving the petitioner.Ultimately, the Court granted the petitioner regular bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Magistrate. The Court clarified that the decision to grant bail should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.In conclusion, the Court's decision to grant bail to the petitioner was based on the principles of criminal jurisprudence, the presumption of innocence, the right to a speedy trial, and the specific circumstances of the case. The Court emphasized the need for a balanced and humane approach in deciding on bail applications, taking into account various factors while ensuring the accused's rights are protected.