Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2022 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 71 - HC - GSTSeeking Bail - Pre-trial incarceration - fraud related to GST invoices - petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family - HELD THAT:- A perusal of para 6 of the status report filed by concerned Dy SP, it is revealed that the petitioner had confessed during his interrogation that a sum of Rs.10 lacs had fallen to his share. The petitioner is in custody since 26-01-2022, i.e., for five months. Given the period of incarceration viz-a-viz the amount fallen to the petitioner’s share, coupled with the petitioner being a senior citizen, further pre-trial incarceration might not be justiciable. In GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB [1980 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT], a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail - In KALYAN CHANDRA SARKAR VERSUS RAJESH RANJAN @ PAPPU YADAV & ANR. [2005 (1) TMI 704 - SUPREME COURT] a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In SUSHILA AGGARWAL AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER [2020 (1) TMI 1193 - SUPREME COURT], the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. The petitioner is allowed to be release subject to fulfillment of various condition imposed - bail application allowed.
|