TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....468, 471 of IPC and Section 132(1)(B)(C) of HGST Act, 2017, at Police Station Arya Nagar Rohtak, District Rohtak. As per the prosecution, the FIR in the present case was got registered by the Excise and Taxation Officer by alleging that the petitioner is creating false and bogus companies for extracting GST amount from the public. It was further alleged that he was issuing fake bills and had not deposited various amounts in the GST Department and caused a loss of Rs. 10,233,769/- to the Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not been named in the present case nor any specific role has been assigned to him. As per the case of the prosecution, the only role attributed to the present petitioner is th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....C.R. (Criminal) 831 has held that the pendency of several criminal cases against the accused cannot be basis to refuse the prayer of bail. Similar observations has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P., and another 2012(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 586. Still further, no doubt, several other criminal cases have been registered against the present petitioner, but that cannot be sole ground to confine the present petitioner in jail for an indefinite period. The bail to a petitioner cannot be denied solely on the ground that several other cases are pending against him, even though, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of bail in the facts of the present case. In....