2025 (7) TMI 692 - HC - GST

Applicant granted regular bail under Sections 132 and 137 of Central GST Act 2017

HITESH MADAN S/O BHAGWANDAS MOTILAL MADAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

HITESH MADAN S/O BHAGWANDAS MOTILAL MADAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter include:Whether the applicant-accused is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Gujarat GST Act, 2017.The appropriateness of granting bail considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences involving clandestine supply of goods and evasion of GST payments.The relevance of the applicant's role and involvement in the alleged offence to the grant of bail.The application of judicial precedents regarding bail, particularly the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr.The conditions that may be imposed upon granting bail to ensure the applicant's presence during trial and prevent misuse of liberty.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Entitlement to Regular Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 governs the grant of regular bail to accused persons. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's rulings in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr., which establish principles for bail, emphasizing a balance between the accused's right to liberty and the interests of justice.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the applicant had been in custody since 20.02.2025 and that the investigation was complete with the charge-sheet filed. The offences alleged pertain to clandestine supply and GST evasion, punishable with imprisonment up to five years, triable by a Magistrate. The Court observed that the prosecution's case is substantially documentary, and the applicant's role appears limited.Key evidence and findings: The prosecution's reliance on documentary evidence was highlighted, and the applicant's readiness to deposit 10% of the alleged amount (Rs. 70,77,368.50) was considered significant. The applicant's local residence in Ahmedabad was also a factor favoring bail.Application of law to facts: Applying the principles from the cited precedents, the Court found that the applicant's custodial detention since February 2025, the nature of the offence, and the completion of investigation justified the exercise of discretion in favor of bail.Treatment of competing arguments: The State opposed bail citing the seriousness and gravamen of the offence. However, the Court balanced this against the applicant's limited role, documentary nature of evidence, and willingness to comply with conditions.Conclusion: The Court concluded that the case was fit for granting regular bail under Section 483, subject to stringent conditions to safeguard the prosecution's interest.Issue 2: Conditions to be Imposed on BailRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Court's power to impose conditions on bail is well-established to ensure that the accused does not misuse liberty or hamper the trial process.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court imposed conditions including execution of a personal bond with surety, surrender of passport, restriction on leaving the State without permission, monthly police station attendance, furnishing and maintaining a fixed residence, and deposit of 10% of the alleged GST amount.Key evidence and findings: The applicant's local residence and willingness to deposit a substantial amount were critical in framing these conditions.Application of law to facts: These conditions were designed to secure the applicant's presence, prevent flight risk, and protect the prosecution's interests.Treatment of competing arguments: While the State opposed bail, the Court's conditions addressed concerns about misuse of liberty and interference with the investigation or trial.Conclusion: The Court's conditions reflect a balanced approach, ensuring liberty with accountability.Issue 3: Effect of Grant of Bail on Trial and EvidenceRelevant legal framework and precedents: It is a settled principle that observations made at the bail stage are preliminary and do not influence the trial court's assessment of evidence.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court explicitly stated that the trial Court shall not be influenced by the preliminary observations made while granting bail.Application of law to facts: This ensures that the trial proceeds independently and fairly, without prejudice from bail proceedings.Conclusion: The trial court retains full jurisdiction to evaluate evidence and decide on guilt or innocence.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held:'In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail.'Core principles established include:Grant of regular bail is discretionary and must balance the accused's right to liberty with the interests of justice, especially considering the nature of the offence, role of the accused, and stage of investigation.Documentary evidence and limited role of the accused may favor bail, even in serious economic offences.Imposition of stringent conditions on bail is essential to prevent misuse of liberty and ensure the presence of the accused during trial.Preliminary observations at the bail stage shall not influence the trial court's evaluation of evidence.Final determinations:The applicant is allowed regular bail upon execution of a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety of like amount.The applicant must deposit 10% of the alleged GST amount within two weeks.Conditions including surrender of passport, restrictions on travel, monthly police station attendance, and maintaining a fixed residence are imposed.The trial court may modify or relax conditions as per law and shall proceed independently without being influenced by bail-stage observations.