Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2021 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 177 - HC - GSTDefault of condition on which the bail was granted - within the statutory period provided the investigation could not be completed and complaint as provided under the provisions of GST Act was not filed against the applicant - Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - While considering the case for default bail of the applicant, whether condition can be imposed lime the condition imposed in the present case for depositing 50% of the amount for which prosecution was launched? HELD THAT - Considering the language of Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, i.e. on expiry of the statutory period to complete investigation, an indefeasible right is created in favour of the accused person entitling him to default bail once the accused applies for the default bail and shows his willingness to furnish bail, if any other condition is imposed, is to be treated beyond the jurisdiction of the Court concerned while exercising powers to grant default /statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The condition imposed under order dated 01.10.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, to the extent of directing deposit of 50% of the alleged amount of ₹ 9,43,50,223 is hereby ordered to be quashed and set aside - petition allowed.
Issues:
- Imposition of condition for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Validity of imposing a condition to deposit 50% of the alleged amount for which prosecution was launched Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate imposing a condition for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner argued that the Court erred in imposing the condition as the investigation was not completed within the statutory period, and no complaint under the GST Act was filed against the applicant. The petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Saravanan Vs. State, emphasizing that once the applicant shows willingness to furnish bail, an indefeasible right is created in his favor to be enlarged on bail. The Court considered the arguments and highlighted that the purpose of default bail is to ensure the accused's right to bail if certain conditions are met, without additional impositions beyond the statutory requirements. Issue 2: The Court examined the validity of imposing a condition to deposit 50% of the alleged amount for which prosecution was launched, amounting to ?9,43,50,223. The Court referred to the Apex Court's judgment in Saravanan's case, emphasizing that the imposition of such a condition frustrates the object and purpose of default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court reiterated that once the accused meets the criteria for default bail, including being in jail for more than the specified period with no completion of investigation or chargesheet filed, no additional conditions like depositing the alleged amount can be imposed. The Court held that such conditions go beyond the jurisdiction of the Court and ordered the quashing and setting aside of the condition to deposit 50% of the alleged amount for which prosecution was launched. In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the condition imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, and made the rule absolute to that extent. The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Apex Court's ruling in Saravanan's case, emphasizing the statutory rights of the accused in default bail situations.
|