2024 (1) TMI 975 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of regular bail - issue of fake and fictitious invoices - evasion of tax by doing business only on paper - present petitioner submits that final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been presented by the police - HELD THAT - As per the record the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 26.08.2023 and is behind the bars for the last about 04 months. Final report has already been presented before the Competent Court. Even three more cases were ordered to be registered against the present petitioner. However the petitioner is on bail in all the cases registered against him and in the considered opinion of the Court further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. Without commenting any further on the merits the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the grant of regular bail in a case involving multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST), as well as the contention regarding the appropriate statute governing the case.

Grant of Regular Bail:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, and 477-A IPC, along with Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had been in custody for over four months, with a final report already presented and three additional cases ordered against them. The petitioner was on bail in the other cases, and it was argued that further custody would not serve any meaningful purpose. The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner's release on bail upon furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Duty Magistrate.

Controversy over Statute Application:
The petitioner's counsel contended that the police incorrectly applied provisions of the IPC instead of the CGST Act, 2017, arguing that the case falls under the special statute. It was emphasized that the case relied on documentary evidence, already collected by the police, and that the investigation had concluded with the presentation of the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The counsel highlighted that all offenses were triable by a Magistrate. In contrast, the Respondent, represented by Ms. Sheenu Sura, opposed the bail plea, citing serious allegations against the petitioner and arguing against granting regular bail.