TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he applicant) might not be able to pay the evaded amount. Prima facie, it appears that the investigation being under progress, the exact amount evaded is not yet ascertained. Matter remanded to the learned Magistrate and therefore it is neither necessary nor appropriate to appreciate the material in details or to record any final conclusion lest it would prejudice either the applicant or the prosecution before the learned Magistrate - application dismissed. - CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 520 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 22-12-2020 - C.V. BHADANG, J. Mr. Sanjeev Kadam a/w. Sagar Kasar, for the Applicant Mr. Jitendra Mishra, Spl. P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. Ajay Patil, APP for the Respondent / State. ORDER P.C. 1. This application is placed before this Bench as the regular Bench (Sandeep K. Shinde, J.) is unable to take up the matter. 2. The challenge in this application, is to the judgment and order dated 7/12/2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Thane in Criminal Misc. Application No.247/2020. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order dated 25/9/2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g into loss to the Government Exchequer. It was contended that the offence is a serious economic offence and therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 25/9/2020, inter alia, taking note of the fact that the applicant had showed willingness to compound the offence and to pay ₹ 25 Lakhs and further noticing that the offence is punishable with maximum imprisonment of 5 years and fine and further having regard to the fact that the documents and the invoices have already been seized and are in the custody of the Investigating Authority, had released the applicant on bail. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent filed an application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Thane being MA No.247/2020. Before the learned Sessions Judge, reliance was placed on behalf of the applicant on several decisions as noted in para 13 of the order of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge found that principally the bail was granted, on an undertaking given to the Trial Court that the applicant would compound the offence on payment of the tax amount. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Sessions Judge was in error, in cancelling the bail granted by the learned Magistrate. 11. On behalf of the applicant, reliance is placed on the following decisions- 1. Myakala Dharmarajam and Ors Vs. State of Telangana and Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 743 2. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Mohd. Hussain Alias Saleem (2014) 1 SCC 258. 3. Kanwar Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2012) 12 SCC 180. 4. Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) Vs. State of Gujarat (2008) 5 SCC 66. 5. Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Vs. Ram Charan (2006) 5 SCC 272. 6. Mehboob Dawood Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra (2004) 2 SCC 362 7. Puran Vs. Rambilas and Anr. (2001) 6 SCC 338. 8. Dolat Ram and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349. 9. Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (1988) 2 SCC 271. 10. Premchand Pratapmal Surana Vs. The State of Maharashtra 1995 (1) Bom.C.R. 72 11. Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra (1992) 4 SCC 272. 12. Bhagirathsinh s/o. Mahipat Singh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat (1984) 1 SCC 284. 13. Kamal K. Chadha Vs. B. S. Subhedar and Anr. 1981 Cri. L.J. 1799. 14. Gurcharan Singh and Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1978) 1 SCC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts / accused tampering with the evidence and therefore, it was held that the High Court was not justified in cancelling the bail so granted. Although, the principles which are relevant are well settled, the matter would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. 16. Coming to the present case, prima facie, it appears that the investigation is in progress and the allegations are about substantial evasion of tax to the extent of ₹ 541 Crores by availing Input Tax Credit without actual trading / movement of goods which is an offence under Section 132 of the CGST Act. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate would prima facie indicate that what has principally weighed with the learned Magistrate was that the applicant had given an undertaking seeking permission to compound the offence before the Commissioner, on payment of the tax amount as per rules. The learned Magistrate has observed that even though the offence leveled against the applicant is serious in nature, no purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars, that too when he is willing to pay the evaded amount and compound the offence . In the opinion of the learned Magistrate sitting behind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
