The operation of the order cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner is stayed.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail – The petitioner sought stay on the order dated 17th July, 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner by the learned CMM vide order dated 9th March, 2021. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that based on vague allegations of tempering of evidence and influencing the witnesses, learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the bail. The petitioner was in judicial custody for 30 days. There is no material whatsoever with the respondent to show that the petitioner tried to influence the witnesses or tempered with the evidence. The respondent counsel submitted that the petitioner in his statements had admitted to be the owner of a fake and non-existing firm and he defrauded the department by forming different firms and opening different bank accounts with two different PAN numbers. The petitioner did not join the summons. The court observed that the investigation started in the year 2018 and was continuing when the petitioner was arrested on 9th February, 2021 and was granted bail on 9th March, 2021 and till date complaint has not been filed and in case the petitioner was in custody in the event of the complaint not being filed in 60 days, he would have been entitled to default bail.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court issued Notice and directed that till the next date of hearing, the operation of the impugned order dated 17th July, 2021 is stayed and the NBWs issued against the petitioner are kept in abeyance. Listed the matter on 7th September, 2021.
The operation of the order cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner is stayed.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail – The petitioner sought stay on the order dated 17th July, 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner by the learned CMM vide order dated 9th March, 2021. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that based on vague allegations of tempering of evidence and influencing the witnesses, learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the bail. The petitioner was in judicial custody for 30 days. There is no material whatsoever with the respondent to show that the petitioner tried to influence the witnesses or tempered with the evidence. The respondent counsel submitted that the petitioner in his statements had admitted to be the owner of a fake and non-existing firm and he defrauded the department by forming different firms and opening different bank accounts with two different PAN numbers. The petitioner did not join the summons. The court observed that the investigation started in the year 2018 and was continuing when the petitioner was arrested on 9th February, 2021 and was granted bail on 9th March, 2021 and till date complaint has not been filed and in case the petitioner was in custody in the event of the complaint not being filed in 60 days, he would have been entitled to default bail.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court issued Notice and directed that till the next date of hearing, the operation of the impugned order dated 17th July, 2021 is stayed and the NBWs issued against the petitioner are kept in abeyance. Listed the matter on 7th September, 2021.