TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of release, the accused is conditioned to execute bonds and furnish surety and the amount of bond is fixed by the Court/Officer granting bail to the accused and the object of such conditions is to ensure that the accused returns to stand trial. Of course, there cannot be a straitjacket formula to fix the amount of the bond, but it should not be exorbitant to take it beyond the means of the accused, thereby frustrating the relief of bail, as it would amount to giving relief with one hand, but taking away with the other. Perhaps for this reason, Section 440 Cr.P.C. contemplates that the amount of every bond executed under this Chapter shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive. This Court does not find any merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the complainant as the petitioner cannot be allowed to remain in jail indefinitely, because it would mean punishment to the accused before charges against him are even explained. The maximum sentence for the alleged offence in the present case is Five years, whereas the petitioner has already undergone a period of more than 11 months. Since the petitioner is yet to execute the bond and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Directorate General of GST Intelligence by allegedly committing an offence punishable under Section 132(1)(b) of Central Goods Services Act, 2017 (for short 'CGST Act, 2017), punishable under sub-clause(i) of Section 132(1) of CGST Act, 2017. It is the case of the petitioner that the alleged offence carries a punishment upto rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and a period of 60 days is provided for presentation of chargesheet against the accused. According to the petitioner, within the said stipulated period of 60 days, no charge-sheet/complaint was filed by the complainant, therefore, his application for release under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. was accepted vide order dated 24.2.2021, but while releasing him on bail, stringent conditions were imposed upon him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, who directed him to execute the bond amounting to ₹ 1.10 crores and two sureties of like amount (at least one local), alongwith various other conditions including furnishing a bank guarantee/FDR of ₹ 60 lakhs. Dissatisfied with the said order dated 24.2.2021 (Annexure P-1) as the amount of bonds fixed were on higher side, the petitioner filed CRR-25-2021 before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RCR (Criminal) 713, decision of this Court in CRM-M-29607-2021, titled as Amandeep Singh Bhui vs. Inspector (Preventive) Central Goods and Service Tax, decided on 28.10.2021, and the judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Neeraj Ram Kumar Tiwari through His Father Ram Kumar Rameshwar Tiwari vs. State of Gujarat, Special Criminal Application No.5777 of 2020. The prayer is vehemently opposed by Mr. Sourabh Goel, learned counsel for respondent-complainant who has argued that the order passed by the revisional Court is justified considering the nature of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner. He submits that the economic offence involving huge amount would be a relevant consideration while releasing the accused on bail and in the present case, the petitioner has fraudulently availed Input Tax Credit of approximately ₹ 15.91 crores, therefore, the modified conditions directing him to furnish bail bond for a sum of ₹ 30 lakhs and two sureties of the like amount cannot be said to be on higher side. He submits that since recovery is also to be effected from the petitioner, therefore, to safeguard the interest of the complainant, imposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or this reason, Section 440 Cr.P.C. contemplates that the amount of every bond executed under this Chapter shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the order dated 15.7.2021 (Annexure P-2), whereby the conditions imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana were modified, the petitioner is unable to fulfill the said requirements because of his financial constraints and is still languishing in prison. During the course of hearing, it was not disputed by Mr. Sourabh Goel, learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was arrested on 24.12.2020 and he has approximately undergone a period of more than 11 months and till date the charge-sheet/complaint against him has not been filed. Though the reply filed by the complainant has laid emphasis on the accusations against the petitioner to allege that he had taken Input Tax Credit without supplying any material by creating dummy firms and caused wrongful loss of ₹ 15.91 crores to the complainant, but at the same time, it is also not disputed by Mr. Sourabh Goel, learned counsel that the statutory period for filing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
