In the present case, the entire act of the applicant/accused indicates cheating and forgery on his part, based upon false, fabricated and forged documents wherein the Input tax credit in crores of rupees have been claimed by floating fictitious companies. If the applicant is enlarged on bail at this stage there is strong possibility of him influencing the prosecution witnesses or hampering the investigation of the case, hence, no ground for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application stands dismissed.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail – The appellant prayed for regular bail. The applicant counsel submitted that applicant’s arrest is illegal, without complying the requirements of law, even the grounds of the arrest was not disclosed which is a serious infirmity and would make the arrest and detention illegal; that the applicant do not have any business relationship or dealings with the suppliers, which are bogus and have been mentioned deliberately by the department in the remand application to implicate the applicant falsely. Any criminal proceedings initiated by the department prior to adjudication proceedings is bad in law. Maximum punishment provided in the act is about 5 years i.e less than 7 years and the department has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 41 and 41A of Cr.P.C. The applicant is in J.C since 23.07.2021 and he is not required for further investigation or custodial interrogation and same is complete qua him and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. The respondent counsel submitted that the investigation is at nascent stage, statement of accused persons recorded wherein they admitted the commission of the offence. The court observed that there is neither hard and fast rule nor any precedent that completion of 30 days in judicial custody entitles the applicant/accused to be released on bail. Further, one of the main accused/Managing Director is absconding, is evading the process of law which is hampering the further investigation of the case and if the applicant is enlarged on bail at this stage there is strong possibility of him influencing the prosecution witnesses and / or hampering the investigation of the case.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Court dismissed the application.
In the present case, the entire act of the applicant/accused indicates cheating and forgery on his part, based upon false, fabricated and forged documents wherein the Input tax credit in crores of rupees have been claimed by floating fictitious companies. If the applicant is enlarged on bail at this stage there is strong possibility of him influencing the prosecution witnesses or hampering the investigation of the case, hence, no ground for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application stands dismissed.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail – The appellant prayed for regular bail. The applicant counsel submitted that applicant’s arrest is illegal, without complying the requirements of law, even the grounds of the arrest was not disclosed which is a serious infirmity and would make the arrest and detention illegal; that the applicant do not have any business relationship or dealings with the suppliers, which are bogus and have been mentioned deliberately by the department in the remand application to implicate the applicant falsely. Any criminal proceedings initiated by the department prior to adjudication proceedings is bad in law. Maximum punishment provided in the act is about 5 years i.e less than 7 years and the department has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 41 and 41A of Cr.P.C. The applicant is in J.C since 23.07.2021 and he is not required for further investigation or custodial interrogation and same is complete qua him and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. The respondent counsel submitted that the investigation is at nascent stage, statement of accused persons recorded wherein they admitted the commission of the offence. The court observed that there is neither hard and fast rule nor any precedent that completion of 30 days in judicial custody entitles the applicant/accused to be released on bail. Further, one of the main accused/Managing Director is absconding, is evading the process of law which is hampering the further investigation of the case and if the applicant is enlarged on bail at this stage there is strong possibility of him influencing the prosecution witnesses and / or hampering the investigation of the case.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Court dismissed the application.