Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, availability of prima facie case against the petitioner, coupled with the fact that a huge amount of public money has been misappropriated, Accordingly, the bail application lacks merit and hence stands rejected.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail — The petitioner sought bail for the alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b) 7 (c) of Act, 2017. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no evidence against the petitioner in the alleged crime. The grounds of arrest are contrary to the material evidences on record. The respondent counsel submitted that accusation against the petitioner relates to the commission of economic offences which are considered grave and therefore it must be viewed seriously. The court observed that considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, availability of prima facie case against the petitioner, coupled with the fact that a huge amount of public money has been misappropriated and also the fact that further investigation of the case is under progress and taking into account the apprehension of the petitioner in tampering with the evidence, the court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court rejected the bail application.
Considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, availability of prima facie case against the petitioner, coupled with the fact that a huge amount of public money has been misappropriated, Accordingly, the bail application lacks merit and hence stands rejected.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail — The petitioner sought bail for the alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b) 7 (c) of Act, 2017. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no evidence against the petitioner in the alleged crime. The grounds of arrest are contrary to the material evidences on record. The respondent counsel submitted that accusation against the petitioner relates to the commission of economic offences which are considered grave and therefore it must be viewed seriously. The court observed that considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the nature of supporting evidence, availability of prima facie case against the petitioner, coupled with the fact that a huge amount of public money has been misappropriated and also the fact that further investigation of the case is under progress and taking into account the apprehension of the petitioner in tampering with the evidence, the court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court rejected the bail application.