TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istrate, EO-I, Egmore and which have been later partially modified by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai by an order dated 28.02.2020 made in Crl.M.P Nos.4576 and 4575 of 2020. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners were arrested in R.R No.42 of 2019 in F.No. INV / DGGI / CZU/GST/110/2019 for the offence under Section 132(1)(b) & (c) and 132(5) of the CGST Act 2017 and in R.R No.41 of 2019 in F.No. INV/DGGI/CZU/GST/110/2019 respectively for the offence under Section 132(1)(b) & (c) and 132(5) of the CGST Act 2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 21.12.2019 and since final report was not filed by the respondent police they applied for statutory ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he condition and they are languishing in jail from 21.12.2019 and despite the statutory bail granted on 19.02.2020 they were unable to come out. The Court below have imposed a condition which cannot be complied with. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the indefeasible right given under Section 167(2) cannot be extinguished by imposing any onerous conditions. The condition directing to deposit cash had indirectly defeated the indefeasible right of the petitioners and it had prevented the petitioners from coming out on bail. The petitioners are permanent resident of Chennai and the continued detention of the petitioners amounts to a pre trial conviction. He would further submit that taking into consideration t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... alternative are prepared to furnish two sureties each, who will be able to deposit title deeds of immovable properties for each of the petitioners worth to the value of Rs. 20lakhs. The learned counsel would pray that the petitioners may be permitted to be released on their own bond and thereafter, a time may be fixed for furnishing the sureties before the Court, after the lockdown is lifted and the normal functioning of the Courts resumes. 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record. 7. In the decision of this Court reported in 2019-1- LW(Crl.)387 in the case of Umadevi V. State this Court in paragraph 18 of the order held that :- "18. Insofar the second issue is concerned, this Court concurs with the view expre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 5lakh, it is the contention of the petitioners that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the family members are unable to raise funds and deposit the amount, further in lieu of non payment of cash, a submission has been made by the counsel for the petitioners that two sureties will be able to deposit documents of immovable properties each worth Rs. 20lakhs for each of the petitioners within a time frame fixed by this Court. 9. In view of the above, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the condition imposed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-I, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.MP.Nos.4576 and 4575 of 2020 dated 19.02.2020 directing each ....