TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eeded under Sections 132(1)(a) and 132(1)(f), 132(1)(i) and 132. By no stretch imagination, the offence under Sections 132(1)(a) and 132(1)(f) of C.G.S.T. Act is made out against the applicant. At the best, the offence under Section 132(1)(l) can be proved, which is also highly doubtful as there is no evidence with regard to abetment of offence. In the ordinary course of business when the payment is received in the escrow account, the amount deducted from the aforesaid receivables with the consent of the online gaming platform company, the remaining amount is sent to the merchants. If there is any funds which have been sent to other entities from the escrow account, then as per the consent of parties and the same may be business transaction or business which cannot be an offence under the C.G.S.T. Act. 3. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that in so far as the question of abetment is concerned, there is no iota of evidence in the complaint in this respect except when the amount is transferred from the escrow account to other entities. In the present case, the evidence collected against the applicant are all documentary evidence and therefore no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r-trial prisoner past 8 months. The Trial Court is yet to commence. Charge is yet to be framed. Even if the trial commences in near future, it would not conclude within next one year. The offences are triable by Magistrate. The maximum punishment that the trial court may be in a position to impose upon the petitioner if held guilty would be upto 5 years." 10. The Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No 2269 of 2025 (Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India) (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No 4349 of 2025) decided on 28.4.2025 while grating bail to accused Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has observed as under:- "The offences alleged against the appellant are under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine. A charge-sheet has been filed. The appellant is in custody for a period of almost 7 months. The case is triable by a Court of a Judicial Magistrate. The sentence is limited and in any case, the prosecution is based on documentary evidence. There are no antecedents. We are surprised to note that in a case like this, the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh case [Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813 : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 222] further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straightforward open-and-shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognise the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception"." 14. Learned counsel for opposite parties has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for bail. 15. Learned counsel for opposite parties has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. No material, fa....