TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DRA VERSUS CBI [ 2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT] has referred the case of STATE OF KERALA VERSUS RANEEF [ 2011 (1) TMI 1396 - SUPREME COURT] to observe that in deciding the bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Here, taking into consideration the course of investigation adopted by the Department and the evidences so collected, the trial may take considerable time and thus it may happen, if nixed the bail, that the judicial custody of the applicant would be prolonged beyond the statutory period of punishment of five years as provided under the Act. Section 132(1)(i) provides for punishment in cases where the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds five hundred lakh rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine; and section 132(2) provides that, where any person convicted of an offence under this section is again convicted of an offence under this section, then, he shall be punishable for the second and for every subsequent offence with imprisonment for a te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocedure, full cooperation was extended by the applicant-accused by providing all the information as sought for by the DGGI. The documentary as well as electronic evidences have also been seized. Then, after closure of the search and seizure proceedings, the applicant-accused subpoenaed by the respondent Office under Section 70 of the Central Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 (henceforth referred to as CGST ) for recording of his statement. It is also submitted that, therefore, apprehending his arrest, the applicant preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which resulted in rejection. Dissatisfied with the order of rejection, the applicant approached this Court with an application seeking pre-arrest bail, which ultimately came to be withdrawn. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty would submit that meanwhile, the applicant-accused got arrested by the Bhavnagar Police in connection with some other offences and on the basis of transfer warrant, the respondent-authority got the custody of the applicant-accused. It is further submitted that the purpose of arrest, when the applicant was cooperating, poses a question regarding the malicious intent of the prosecut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where there is noncompliance of Sections 41 and 41A of the Code, the applicant is entitled to bail. Moreover, number of complaints have been filed by the authority for the very same offence against different individuals with the same sort of allegations, of which, Shri Vaibhav Ghanshyambhai Paragda, Hitesh Prabhudas Lodhiya and Raj Prashantbhai Suchak, having more or less the same role, have already been enlarged on bail by the different Coordinate Bench of this Court. 2.3 In such circumstances, referred to above, learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty prays that there being merit in his application, the same be allowed and the applicant-accused be released on bail. 3. In rebuttal, learned advocate Mr. Nikunt Raval appearing for the original complainant has submitted that from the statements of the applicant and other co-accused persons, the allegations against the applicant in the complaint are fully proved. The applicant has admitted his active role in the alleged offence. Fraudulent availment and utilization of input tax credit of more than Rs. 5 crore has been done by the applicant and offence alleged is cognizable and non-bailable as per Section 132 (5) of CGST Act. In the sear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eating fake firms who subsequently defrauded the government exchequer to the tune of Rs. 33 Crores and odd. Further, from the statement of other fellow accused of the same syndicate, it clearly appears that the accused is operator of non-existent firms and directly involved in this scam. He submits that considering the nature of offence committed by the applicant being a part of huge scam and the fact that the other stake holders or beneficiaries of said illegal activities of availing and utilizing bogus ITC on the basis of invoices without receipt of goods are also under investigation, if the applicant is released on bail, he may tamper with the evidence and influence other stakeholders or witnesses in the present offence. 3.3 In such circumstances, referred to above, learned advocate Mr. Raval prays that there being no merit in the present application, the same be rejected. 4. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has also opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence and has adopted all the arguments advanced by the learned advocate appearing for the original complainant. It is, therefore, submitted that considering the role ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Act, even after the institution of prosecution, on payment by the person accused of the offence, such compounding amount in such manner as may be prescribed. The compounding shall be allowed only after making payment of tax, interest and penalty involved in such offences, on payment of compounding amount as may be determined by the commissioner, the criminal proceeding already initiated in respect of the said offence shall stand abated. 8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid provisions of law and the fact that the Commissioner is empowered to recover the due amount and propose for abating the proceedings and as the trial will take its own time to conclude, this Court deems it proper to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant-accused. 9. Only on the ground of seriousness of the offence, the applicant-accused cannot be deprived of his legitimate right to be released on bail pending trial, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 in the following terms: 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment delivered by the Hon ble Apex Court in a recent past in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I., S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 5191 of 2021, decided on 11.7.2022, and without touching the merits of the matter, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. 11. Hence, the present application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with the FIR being DGGI/INV/CM/25/2022 registered with the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Rajkot, on executing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned; [e] mark presence before the concerned Police Station on alternate Monday of every English calendar month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.; [f] furnish the present address of residence to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
