In the opinion of this Court, looking to the nature of offence, this is a fit case to exercise the discretionary powers of the Court in favour of the applicant by putting some stringent conditions.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Bail – The petitioner accused prayed for regular bail for the offences punishable u/s132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Act. The applicant was arrested on 27.10.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. The counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegations are such that the applicants claimed to purchase the material work of Rs. 33.56 crores having claimed of ITC of Rs. 6.04 crores, without supply and receipt of the goods. The applicant has not played any role in the present offence and has been falsely implicated by the department. The applicant is not having any criminal history and the case is based on documentary evidence and the necessary materials and other documents have already been seized by the department. The case is based on documents and no custodial interrogation is required. The court observed that whole case is based on the documentary evidence and the Investigating Agency has already seized the related documents. It is not that the applicant would flee from the trial. There is no justifiable ground to keep the present applicant in the judicial custody till the completion of investigation / trial.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the application and enlarged the applicant on bail subject to certain conditions.
In the opinion of this Court, looking to the nature of offence, this is a fit case to exercise the discretionary powers of the Court in favour of the applicant by putting some stringent conditions.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Bail – The petitioner accused prayed for regular bail for the offences punishable u/s132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Act. The applicant was arrested on 27.10.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. The counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegations are such that the applicants claimed to purchase the material work of Rs. 33.56 crores having claimed of ITC of Rs. 6.04 crores, without supply and receipt of the goods. The applicant has not played any role in the present offence and has been falsely implicated by the department. The applicant is not having any criminal history and the case is based on documentary evidence and the necessary materials and other documents have already been seized by the department. The case is based on documents and no custodial interrogation is required. The court observed that whole case is based on the documentary evidence and the Investigating Agency has already seized the related documents. It is not that the applicant would flee from the trial. There is no justifiable ground to keep the present applicant in the judicial custody till the completion of investigation / trial.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the application and enlarged the applicant on bail subject to certain conditions.