Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2021 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 888 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of Regular Bail - fixing of the amount of the bond for bail - wrongful loss of ₹ 15.91 crores to the complainant-Directorate General of GST Intelligence - Section 132(1)(b) of Central Goods & Services Act, 2017 (for short 'CGST Act, 2017), punishable under sub-clause(i) of Section 132(1) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Chapter XXXIII of Code of Criminal Procedure contains the provisions relating to bail and bonds and Section 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. deal with the regular bail of undertrial. The concession of regular bail liberates the undertrial from detention in prison during the pendency of the trial subject to fulfilling the conditions including execution of personal bond with or without sureties. Ordinarily, the Court before granting regular bail to the accused considers various factors like nature and gravity of the alleged crime, custodial period of the accused, stage of the trial, the alleged role/participation of the accused in the alleged offence and other attending circumstances. At the time of release, the accused is conditioned to execute bonds and furnish surety and the amount of bond is fixed by the Court/Officer granting bail to the accused and the object of such conditions is to ensure that the accused returns to stand trial. Of course, there cannot be a straitjacket formula to fix the amount of the bond, but it should not be exorbitant to take it beyond the means of the accused, thereby frustrating the relief of bail, as it would amount to giving relief with one hand, but taking away with the other. Perhaps for this reason, Section 440 Cr.P.C. contemplates that the amount of every bond executed under this Chapter shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive. This Court does not find any merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the complainant as the petitioner cannot be allowed to remain in jail indefinitely, because it would mean punishment to the accused before charges against him are even explained. The maximum sentence for the alleged offence in the present case is Five years, whereas the petitioner has already undergone a period of more than 11 months. Since the petitioner is yet to execute the bond and furnish the sureties, the condition directing the accused to furnish the bank guarantee/FDR is also not sustainable, as normally, such a condition can be imposed in lieu of executing the bond. This Court is mindful of the fact that admittedly, in the present case, till date no complaint/charge-sheet has been filed by the respondent and despite the concession of bail extended to the petitioner on 24.2.2021, he continues to be in prison. At this juncture, it is needless to observe that every accused is presumed to be innocent till the prosecution brings home the guilt of the accused, and further the grant of bail is a general rule, whereas denial is an exception. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 15.7.2021 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, calls for further modification. The petition succeeds and it is ordered that the accused shall be released on bail subject to his executing bond of ₹ 10 lakhs and two sureties of the like amount, and further the other condition of furnishing a bank guarantee for a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs is set aside - Petition allowed.
|