TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the amount in question is greater than ₹ 2 crores but does not exceed ₹ 5 crores. There is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of such discretion by the Courts. There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail. The answer to the question whether to grant bail or not depends upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail. For the purpose of granting or refusing bail there is no classification of the offences except the ban under Section 437(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code against grant of bail in the case of offences punishable with death or life imprisonment. Hence there is no statutory support or justification for classifying offences into different categories such as economic offences and for refusing bail on the ground that the offence involved belongs to a particular category. When the Court has been g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses and M/s Sahoo Traders. The above persons, individually by Sri Vikas Sarawgi, the petitioner herein and in collusion with Sri Ankit Agrawal and Sri Pramod Kumar Sahoo, are stated to have created several dummy and nonexistent entities to avail bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC), for the purpose of defrauding the revenue. 3. The typology and modus operandi of such fraudulent activities involved in the creation of these dummy and non-existent firms, appears to have been a matter of grave concern for the authorities. They were predominantly engaged in passing bogus input tax credit, secured on the strength of fake and fabricated invoices without supply of any physical goods to such other existing and non-existing firms, thereby enabling the recipients to avail and utilize the same while discharging tax liabilities. These fake and fraudulent transactions have, among others, caused huge loss to the State exchequer at least to the tune of ₹ 96.39 crores. 4. After intensive analysis of data from GSTN/e-way bill portal and inputs from various sources, the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, CT GST Enforcement Range, Sambalpur detected the fraud committed by the Accused. As seen from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l appearing for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is no way involved in the commission of the offences alleged and that he has been arrested on frivolous grounds. He has also contended that the official has not ascertained who has created the company and at whose instance the fabricated documents have been created and thereby, the question of involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime is highly shrouded under mystery. Further, the FIR story does not disclose that the petitioner has manipulated or has purchased the materials from any source and therefore the ingredients of the offences are not established and the question of input tax also does not arise. Therefore, the present application should be allowed. 8. Per contra, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the proceeding has been rightly initiated against the present petitioner and after complying with the all formalities relating to arrest, he has been arrested. The petitioner is engaged in choreographing a complex variant of GST fraud. He made detailed submissions regarding the economic perspective of the fraud, the nature and modus operan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as provided by the Delhi High Court in the case of H. B. Chaturvedi vs C.B.I BAIL APPLN. 572/2010 CRL.M.(BAIL) 459/2010.: Para 9. In Anil Mahajan v. Commissioner of Customs Anr.84 (2000) DLT 854 , this court after considering the judgments, inter alia, in Gurcharan Singh Others v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179., and Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others v. Public Prosecutor Air 1978 SC 729., summarized the legal position as follows: There is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of such discretion by the Courts. There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail. The answer to the question whether to grant bail or not depends upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail. For the purpose of granting or refusing bail there is no classification of the offences except the ban under Section 437(1) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course, this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. 12. Several High Courts have also opined that while granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public and the State and other similar considerations and have granted bail to the persons accused under section 132 of the CGST Act. In the case of Akshay Dinesh Patel vs Commissioner of CGST 2020 (4) TMI 334 (Gujarat Hight Court), held that the applicant is allowed to be released on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
