TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
AI-powered research trained on the authentic TaxTMI database.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Parity in bail entitlement: petitioner granted regular bail on same terms as co-accused due to equal position and prolonged custody.</h1> Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under offences under the CGST statute was decided on parity with a co-accused: the Court applied the ... Entitlement to regular bail in the criminal complaint under Section 132(1)(b),(c),(f) and (i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - parity with a co-accused who has already been granted regular bail. Parity in grant of bail - HELD THAT:- The Court found that the petitioner had been in custody since 06.05.2025 and had undergone about ten months incarceration, while the co-accused, who is at parity with the petitioner, had already been granted regular bail by this Court. The petitioner had no criminal antecedents and the veracity of allegations was to be examined at trial; having regard to likely long duration of trial and the parity between the petitioner and the co-accused, the Court exercised its jurisdiction to grant regular bail. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits, and imposed the usual condition of furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, with a direction regarding computation of custody if bonds were not furnished within the stipulated time. [Paras 6, 7, 8] Petitioner released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate within seven days; failure to furnish within seven days will result in non-counting of further custody after that period. Final Conclusion: The petition is allowed and regular bail granted to the petitioner on parity with the co-accused and having regard to prolonged pre-trial custody, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds within the time directed; no observation is made on the merits of the case. Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the criminal complaint under Section 132(1)(b),(c),(f) and (i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 on the basis of parity with a co-accused who has already been granted regular bail.Analysis: The petition challenges the order denying bail by the trial court and relies on parity with co-accused Sanket Mittal who was granted regular bail by this Court. The petitioner was arrested on 06.05.2025 and has remained in custody for approximately ten months. The State accepts that the petitioner is at par with the co-accused for the purposes of bail. The Court refrains from examining the merits of the allegations, noting that such issues are for trial and appreciation of evidence. Considering the parity with the co-accused, absence of other criminal antecedents, the period of incarceration already undergone, and the likely duration of trial, the petitioner's entitlement to bail on similar terms as the co-accused was found to be made out.Conclusion: The petition is allowed and the petitioner is to be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate within seven days; failure to furnish bonds within seven days will result in the further custody period after one week not being counted in this case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
