Application filed for regular bail of the accused is allowed
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail -- The applicant sought regular bail, who is on interim bail vide order dated 05.04.2020, which was granted on the ground of illness of his father, who was suffering from 3rd stage cancer. The applicant Counsel submitted that his father has expired. Now, he is seeking regular bail on the ground of parity also as co-accused was granted regular bail on 25.09.2020 and another co accused has also been enlarged on bail after remaining in custody for a certain period of time. The respondent counsel opposed the regular bail on the ground that the applicant/accused has availed fraudulent ITC to the tune of Rs. 12 crores through his various bogus firms. The applicant counsel submitted during the interim bail period, applicant joined the investigation as and when called by the department except on one occasion. The court observed that no apprehension of tampering with evidence is shown, evidence primarily are documentary. The other co-accused already been enlarged on bail and applicant has already joined the investigation and remained in custody for a period of around one month and keeping in view the recent surge in the Covid-19 cases, no purpose would be served to send the applicant behind bar.
Held that:-The Hon’ble Court granted bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs alongwith one surety in the like amount and subject to certain conditions.
Application filed for regular bail of the accused is allowed
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail -- The applicant sought regular bail, who is on interim bail vide order dated 05.04.2020, which was granted on the ground of illness of his father, who was suffering from 3rd stage cancer. The applicant Counsel submitted that his father has expired. Now, he is seeking regular bail on the ground of parity also as co-accused was granted regular bail on 25.09.2020 and another co accused has also been enlarged on bail after remaining in custody for a certain period of time. The respondent counsel opposed the regular bail on the ground that the applicant/accused has availed fraudulent ITC to the tune of Rs. 12 crores through his various bogus firms. The applicant counsel submitted during the interim bail period, applicant joined the investigation as and when called by the department except on one occasion. The court observed that no apprehension of tampering with evidence is shown, evidence primarily are documentary. The other co-accused already been enlarged on bail and applicant has already joined the investigation and remained in custody for a period of around one month and keeping in view the recent surge in the Covid-19 cases, no purpose would be served to send the applicant behind bar.
Held that:-The Hon’ble Court granted bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs alongwith one surety in the like amount and subject to certain conditions.