The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017—Bail -- The petitioner prayed for regular bail. It is alleged that fraudulent transactions of colossal amount of more than Rs. 1325 crores had been effected ultimately leading to a loss of about Rs. 80 crores to the State Exchequer in the shape of evasion of payment of GST. The petitioner counsel submitted that there is no concrete evidence to establish their involvement in the alleged scam and that they have falsely been implicated in the instant case. He further submitted that it is infact a case of double jeopardy wherein the petitioners are also being prosecuted separately in a complaint lodged under provisions of Section 132, wherein they have already been granted bail. The petitioners have been behind bars since the last about 2½ years and in these circumstances deserve the concession of bail, particularly when the amount allegedly defrauded has already been recovered back. The court observed that the trial is yet to commence, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioners behind bars who have been in custody since last about 2½ years.
Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail.
The petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017—Bail -- The petitioner prayed for regular bail. It is alleged that fraudulent transactions of colossal amount of more than Rs. 1325 crores had been effected ultimately leading to a loss of about Rs. 80 crores to the State Exchequer in the shape of evasion of payment of GST. The petitioner counsel submitted that there is no concrete evidence to establish their involvement in the alleged scam and that they have falsely been implicated in the instant case. He further submitted that it is infact a case of double jeopardy wherein the petitioners are also being prosecuted separately in a complaint lodged under provisions of Section 132, wherein they have already been granted bail. The petitioners have been behind bars since the last about 2½ years and in these circumstances deserve the concession of bail, particularly when the amount allegedly defrauded has already been recovered back. The court observed that the trial is yet to commence, no useful purpose would be served by further detaining the petitioners behind bars who have been in custody since last about 2½ years.
Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail.