TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion disposed off. - CRAN 2698 of 2018, CRM 3327 of 2018 And CRAN 2700 of 2018, CRM 3328 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2018 - Shivakant Prasad, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudipto Moitra, Mr. Abhra Mukherjee, Mr. D. Bhattacharyya, Mr. Prasun Mukherjee And Mr. Sauradeep Dutta For the UOI : Mr. K.K. Maity ORDER This is the third round of prayer made for relaxation and/or modification and/or waiver of the conditions of the bail granted on July 9, 2018 and subsequently modified on July 12, 2018 in CRAN 1800 of 2018 whereby this Court granted the petitioners bail in connection with Case No. C 216 of 2018 under Section 131(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on condition of furnishing a bail bond of ₹ 50,00,000/- and on further condition to deposit ₹ 39 crore to the Government Exchequer through the Competent Authority with a further direction to appear before the Investigating Officer/Authority holding investigation to assist the investigating machinery as and when called upon and to appear before the authority concerned till the final investigation or till the offence is compounded under the provision subject to the satisfaction of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of bail or terms of bail either in the context of Section 167(2) or Chapter-XXXIII. They have been employed as synonymous of each other. In Sreenivasulu Reddy v. State of Tamil Nadu VII (2000) CCR 96 the accused had already deposited a sum of ₹ 35 crore out of the ₹ 50 crore imposed in the Bail Order. Their Lordships had emphasized that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C, the Court ought only to impose such conditions/terms for enlarging an accused on bail as would ensure that the accused does not abscond. These conditions should not be intended or calculated to carry out and effect recoveries from the accused. In Sandeep Jain v. State of Delhi I(2000) SLT 368 a direction to deposit ₹ 2 lacs apart from furnishing of a bond of ₹ 50,000/- with two solvent sureties was held to be unreasonable. In Sheikh Ayub v. State of M.P. (2004) 13 SCC 457 the Supreme Court deleted the direction to deposit a sum of ₹ 2,50,000/-, which was the amount allegedly misappropriated by the accused. In Shyam Singh v. State (2006) 9 SCC 169 the condition that the accused should make a payment of ₹ 1,00,000/- per month after his re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Designated Court or the period of extension has also expired, the accused person would be entitled to move an application for being admitted to bail under sub-section (4) of Section 20 TADA read with Section 167 of the Code and the Designated Court shall release him on bail. We are not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that on the expiry of the period during which investigation is required to be completed under Section 20(4) TADA read with Section 167 of the Code, the court must release the accused on bail on its own motion even without any application from an accused person on his offering to furnish bail. In our opinion an accused is required to make an application if he wishes to be released on bail on account o f the default of the investigating/prosecuting agency and once such an application is made, the court should issue a notice to the public prosecutor who may either show that the prosecution has obtained the order for extension for completion of investigation from the Court under clause (bb) or that the challan has been filed in the Designated Court before the expiry of the prescribed period or even that the prescribed period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refuse the grant of bail to an accused under sub-section (4) of Section 20 TADA on account of the default of the prosecution. In case of State of Maharashtra v. Bharati Chandmal Verma (Mrs) Alias Ayesha Khan; reported in (2002) 2 SCC 121, reference is made to the following effect:- For the application of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code there is no necessity to consider when the investigation could regally have commenced. That proviso is intended only for keeping an arrested person under detention fr the purpose of investigation and the legislature has provided a maximum period for such detention. On the expiry of the said period the further custody becomes unauthorized and hence it is mandated that the arrested person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail. It may be a different position if the same accused was found to have been involved in some other offence disconnected from the offence for which he was arrested. In such an eventuality the officer investigating such second offence can exercise the power of arresting him in connection with the second case. But if the investigation associated therewith, any further investigation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t at that stage, Magistrate has no power to remand a person beyond the stipulated period of 90/60 days. He must pass an order of bail and communicate the same to the accused to furnish the requisite bail bonds. In rebuttal Mr. Maity refers to a decision in the case of State of Bihar Anr v. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751 to content that where the economic offence is committed, the petitioners are required to be put behind the bar and to hold the trial. I am unable to accept such contention in view of the fact that GST Authority and their Investigating Officer has failed to submit charge sheet against the petitioners and even no extension of time to complete the investigation has been sought for by them. In respectful consideration of the principles laid down in the cited decisions and further in view of latest decision of the Hon ble Apex Court that the courts cannot extend investigation period under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is pleased to relax the conditions of bail imposed by this Court s order dated July 12, 2018 so as to enable their release on bail as they have statutory right to be released and further bear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
