2025 (6) TMI 584 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Regular bail - offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(a) or (b) or (c) or (d) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR without discussing the evidence in detail prima facie this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with offence registered by the respondent No.2 subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this judgment are:

• Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the offence registered under Sections 132(1)(a) to (d) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017;
• The applicability and exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail considering the nature and gravity of the offence;
• The relevance of the applicant's role, past criminal antecedents, and the nature of evidence in deciding bail;
• The conditions that may be imposed on the applicant if bail is granted to ensure that liberty is not misused and the interests of prosecution are protected;
• The extent to which the trial court should be influenced by the observations made by the High Court at the bail stage.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement to Regular Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the grant of regular bail. Additionally, the Court relied on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51. These precedents emphasize the exercise of judicial discretion in bail matters, balancing the right to liberty against the gravity of the offence and the evidence.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that although the offence is serious, the applicant's role was limited. The Court also observed that the maximum punishment prescribed is up to five years, which is a relevant factor in bail considerations. The Court emphasized that the entire case prima facie appears to be based on documentary evidence rather than direct incriminating acts.

Key evidence and findings: The applicant has been in custody since 29.04.2025, and his statements have been recorded multiple times. Seizure of relevant electronic evidence such as computer hard disks and ledgers has been undertaken and sent for forensic examination. The applicant has no prior criminal record and has deposited a substantial amount (Rs.1,73,00,000/-) with the GST Authority.

Application of law to facts: Applying the legal principles, the Court found that the applicant's limited role, absence of past criminal antecedents, and the documentary nature of evidence weigh in favor of bail. The Court underscored that the applicant's liberty should not be curtailed unnecessarily when the case is primarily documentary and the applicant has cooperated with the investigation.

Treatment of competing arguments: The prosecution opposed bail citing the gravity of the offence. However, the Court balanced these concerns against the applicant's cooperation, lack of criminal history, and the nature of evidence. The Court found the prosecution's apprehensions insufficient to deny bail outright.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, subject to conditions to prevent misuse of liberty.

Issue 2: Conditions to be Imposed on Bail

Relevant legal framework: The Court exercised its discretion to impose conditions to safeguard the interests of the prosecution and ensure the applicant's presence during trial, consistent with established bail jurisprudence.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that bail is a conditional liberty and must not be misused. Conditions were tailored to prevent the applicant from absconding, tampering with evidence, or otherwise prejudicing the prosecution.

Key conditions imposed:

• Execution of a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of the like amount;
• Not to misuse liberty or act against prosecution interests;
• Surrender of passport within one week;
• Restriction on leaving the State of Gujarat without prior permission;
• Mandatory presence at the concerned police station on alternate Mondays for three months;
• Furnishing current residential address and obtaining prior permission for any change.

Application of law to facts: These conditions were deemed necessary given the nature of the offence and to ensure the applicant's availability for trial and investigation.

Treatment of competing arguments: The prosecution did not specifically challenge the conditions but opposed bail itself. The Court balanced liberty with the prosecution's concerns by imposing these safeguards.

Conclusions: The conditions strike a balance between protecting the prosecution's interest and safeguarding the applicant's liberty.

Issue 3: Influence of High Court's Observations on Trial Court

Relevant legal framework: It is a settled principle that observations made by a higher court at the bail stage are of a preliminary nature and should not influence the trial court's evaluation of evidence.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court explicitly stated that the trial court shall not be influenced by its preliminary observations regarding evidence while deciding the case on merits.

Application of law to facts: This ensures that the trial court independently assesses the evidence without being prejudiced by the bail order.

Conclusions: The trial court's independence in adjudicating the case is preserved.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held that:

"In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail."

Core principles established include:

• The grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, requires a balanced exercise of judicial discretion considering the nature of the offence, evidence, and role of the accused;
• Documentary evidence-based cases with limited role of the accused and absence of prior criminal antecedents may favor bail;
• Conditions can and should be imposed to prevent misuse of liberty and protect prosecution interests;
• Preliminary observations by the High Court at bail stage shall not prejudice the trial court's independent assessment of evidence.

Final determinations on each issue:

• The applicant is entitled to regular bail subject to specified conditions;
• The conditions imposed are necessary and appropriate to safeguard the prosecution's interests;
• The trial court is free to independently evaluate evidence without being influenced by the bail order.