It is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail — The petitioner sought bail for the offences punishable under section 132 (1)(b)(c) and (1) of the Act. It is alleged that the Petitioner being in collusion with the accused had created and operated five fictitious business entities as also has created and operated other three such agencies and issued that they have issued fake invoices in the name of eight non-existent and fictitious business entities without physical movement of the goods. The petitioner counsel submitted that the entire prosecution case is based on documentary evidence which by now have already been seized and the Petitioner has remained in custody for more than four months. There is no scope on his part to tamper with any such evidence. The respondent counsel submitted that the prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioner having earlier been rejected in BLAPL No. 6354 of 2021, there is no change in the circumstances for reconsideration of the said prayer. The court observed that he prosecution case is mainly based upon the documents. The complaint having already been filed, by now more than four months have already passed. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of the city of Rourkela and as such hardly there remains the scope for him to flee away from justice.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court granted bail subject to certain conditions.
It is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail — The petitioner sought bail for the offences punishable under section 132 (1)(b)(c) and (1) of the Act. It is alleged that the Petitioner being in collusion with the accused had created and operated five fictitious business entities as also has created and operated other three such agencies and issued that they have issued fake invoices in the name of eight non-existent and fictitious business entities without physical movement of the goods. The petitioner counsel submitted that the entire prosecution case is based on documentary evidence which by now have already been seized and the Petitioner has remained in custody for more than four months. There is no scope on his part to tamper with any such evidence. The respondent counsel submitted that the prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioner having earlier been rejected in BLAPL No. 6354 of 2021, there is no change in the circumstances for reconsideration of the said prayer. The court observed that he prosecution case is mainly based upon the documents. The complaint having already been filed, by now more than four months have already passed. The Petitioner is a permanent resident of the city of Rourkela and as such hardly there remains the scope for him to flee away from justice.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court granted bail subject to certain conditions.