TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner therein was ordered to be stayed vide order dated 26.03.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. Thus, trial in the case is likely to take some time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for indefinite period. It is observed that the State/ Prosecuting Agency/ State police shall be at liberty to observe the behaviour of the petitioner during bail period, and in case it feels that the petitioner is indulging in influencing any of the witnesses or tampering with the prosecution evidence in any manner or otherwise causing interference with the progress of trial, it shall be open for the State/Prosecuting Agency/State police to move the trial Court for cancellation of bail, which shall be decided by the trial Court on merits. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, the concerned Station House Officer shall be informed about the release of petitioner and the petitioner shall inform the concerned Station House Officer about his address at which he intends to reside during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen Rajesh Kumar replied that no ID was available with him, Tarun Kumar told him that he would create identity for him, to which Rajesh Kumar agreed. Thereafter, a new ID in name of Ajay Gupta was created which was later on used to create partnership entities and open bank accounts in their name. Thus Ajay Gupta alias Rajesh Kumar, with the help of Tarun Kumar, forged his identity to create two partnership firms which were later used to generate not only bogus ITC but also in availing fraudulent refund from the G.S.T. Department. He being one of the partners in two firms, namely M/s La Mode Fashions and M/s Murari Enterprises, has knowingly provided his credentials to Shri Tarun Kumar and to Rakesh Arora for creating firms and also for opening bank accounts in the name of these firms. He has also received monetary benefits from Rakesh Arora in lieu of he being a partner in two firms. He was arrested on 27.12.2020 and was produced before the Hon'ble CJM Court, who granted him judicial custody. - x - x - 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a proprietor running a Cyber Cafe in Noida and he has been falsely implicated in this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.11.2022 (Annexure P-1). Accordingly the petitioner has filed the instant petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has no role to play in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the petitioner, along with Ms. Shreya Aggarwal and Mr. Ajay Gupta (all residents of Noida, Uttar Pradesh), have been falsely implicated as partner in the aforementioned three Firms. It is submitted that the basic provisions, i.e. Section 69 as well as Section 132 of the C.G.S.T. Act, have already been impugned before this Court by one of the co-accused, namely Ankur Garg, in CWP No. 7147 of 2021 titled as Ankur Garg Vs. Union of India and others , wherein a Division Bench of this Court had stayed the trial in the present Complaint Case No. COMA/1519/2021 dated 04.02.2021, qua the petitioner therein (Ankur Garg), vide order dated 26.03.2021 (Annexure P-7). 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 132 of the C.G.S.T. Act, the maximum punishment may extend up to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years whereas the petitioner has already undergone two years, five months and twenty one days of custody (as on 17.05.2023). It is fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the punishment under Section 132 of the C.G.S.T. Act may extend up to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. Further while referring to the custody certificate of petitioner, it is also not disputed that the petitioner has undergone two years, five months and twenty one days of custody (as on 17.05.2023). 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book, reply filed by respondent-Department as well as custody certificate of the petitioner. 12. Concededly in the instant case, the maximum sentence specified under Section 132 of the C.G.S.T. Act is up to five years of rigorous imprisonment and the petitioner having already undergone custody for a period of two years, five months and twenty one days (as on 17.05.2023), would be entitled to bail. Furthermore, one of the co-accused in the instant Complaint Case No. COMA/1519/2021 dated 04.02.2021 has already laid challenge to the provisions of Section 69 and 132 of the C.G.S.T. Act by way of filing a writ petition bearing CWP No. 7147 of 2021 titled as Ankur Garg Vs. Union of India and others , wherein trial qua the petitioner therein was ordered to be stayed vide order dated 26.03.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
