9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 132(1) (b) & (c) punishable under Section 132(1) (i) of CGST Act, only to the limited extent of the imposition of conditions on ground of same being unreasonable. 2. The petitioner, who is facing prosecution in the aforementioned complaint case, applied for his release on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.PC, wherein the Court vide its order dated 11.01.2021 accepted the prayer and admitted him to bail by imposing the following conditions: 1. Accused shall furnish a bank guarantee/FDR for an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs to be forfeited to the State in case of violation of any of the terms and conditions imposed vide this order. 2. Accused shall come present on each and every date of hearing for appearance in the Court and for trial of the case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2020) AIR (SC) 5245, Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of 2 of 6 Maharashtra, (2001) AIR (SC) 1910, G.A.Senthilkumar vs. State represented by The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Trichy (Crl. O.P.(MD) No.12307 of 2017) decided on 20.09.2017 and Jangpao Haokip vs. State of Manipur and another (Crl. Petn. No.28 of 2020) decided on 21.12.2020. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel and counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that petitioner Sahil Jain was involved in bogus transactions of approximately Rs. 252 crores involving Input Tax Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be onerous much less being against the mandate of the Supreme Court in Saravanan's case(supra). 7. It would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Saravanan's case(supra), which are as follows: "Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the scheme and the object and purpose of default bail/statutory bail, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in imposing condition that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail. It appears that the High Court has imposed such a condition taking into consideration the fact that earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or 90 days, as the case may be, and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail. 9.1 As observed hereinabove and even from the impugned orders passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court while releasing the appellant on default bail/statutory bail has imposed the condition to deposit Rs. 8,00,000/- taking into consideration that earlier before the learned Magistrate and while considering the regular bail application under Section 437 Cr.P.C., the wife of the accused filed an affidavit to deposit Rs. 7,00,000/-. That cannot be a ground to impose the condition to deposit the amount involved, while granting default bail/statutory bail. 8. The case in hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
