Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has been arrested in a socio-economic offence and thus, could not have been released on bail at least until investigation was completed. Notice issued to respondent.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail – The petitioner department challenged the order dated 17th March, 2021 whereby the learned CMM granted bail to the respondent on 29th day of his arrest. The petitioner submitted that the respondent has been arrested in a socio-economic offence and thus, could not have been released on bail at least until investigation was completed. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations of the evasion of duty against the respondent, who was the employer is to the extent of approximately Rs.831 crores on a banned item, whereas the co-accused who was employee of the respondent and against whom the allegations were of evasion of duty of approximately Rs.415 crores was not granted bail by the learned trial Court and was granted statutory bail after 60 days.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court issued Notice and listed the matter on 16th December, 2021. The court directed the competent officer of the petitioner to file an affidavit indicating as to whether the petitioner was in a position to file complaint within a period of 60 days from the arrest of the respondent so that the respondent would not have been entitled to a statutory bail like the co-accused.
Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has been arrested in a socio-economic offence and thus, could not have been released on bail at least until investigation was completed. Notice issued to respondent.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail – The petitioner department challenged the order dated 17th March, 2021 whereby the learned CMM granted bail to the respondent on 29th day of his arrest. The petitioner submitted that the respondent has been arrested in a socio-economic offence and thus, could not have been released on bail at least until investigation was completed. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations of the evasion of duty against the respondent, who was the employer is to the extent of approximately Rs.831 crores on a banned item, whereas the co-accused who was employee of the respondent and against whom the allegations were of evasion of duty of approximately Rs.415 crores was not granted bail by the learned trial Court and was granted statutory bail after 60 days.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court issued Notice and listed the matter on 16th December, 2021. The court directed the competent officer of the petitioner to file an affidavit indicating as to whether the petitioner was in a position to file complaint within a period of 60 days from the arrest of the respondent so that the respondent would not have been entitled to a statutory bail like the co-accused.