The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on execution of personal/surety bond
Section 132 of the CGST Act— Bail —-The petitioner filed petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail. The petitioner counsel submitted that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the said matter and is in custody since 24.12.2020. The entire allegation in the FIR would be that he has tried to evade payment of GST on 'tobacco' in connivance with owner of Transport Company. E-way bill was generated a little late and an amount of Rs. 12 lakhs has already been deposited. Further, there is no allegation that the petitioner has directly infused or made any payment towards bribe to ETO, who had been nominated as a coaccused under the said FIR. The respondent counsel submitted that the petitioner has not paid the penalty as on date, which amounts to Rs. 20,49,000/-. The petitioner counsel submitted that a demand has been raised for the penalty, which is being challenged independently and therefore, would have no bearing on the release of the petitioner on regular bail. The court observed that the investigation is complete and challan stands presented, custody of the petitioner would no longer be required.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner be released on regular bail on execution of personal/surety bond in the sum of Rs. 10 lakh each to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to certain conditions.
The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on execution of personal/surety bond
Section 132 of the CGST Act— Bail —-The petitioner filed petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail. The petitioner counsel submitted that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the said matter and is in custody since 24.12.2020. The entire allegation in the FIR would be that he has tried to evade payment of GST on 'tobacco' in connivance with owner of Transport Company. E-way bill was generated a little late and an amount of Rs. 12 lakhs has already been deposited. Further, there is no allegation that the petitioner has directly infused or made any payment towards bribe to ETO, who had been nominated as a coaccused under the said FIR. The respondent counsel submitted that the petitioner has not paid the penalty as on date, which amounts to Rs. 20,49,000/-. The petitioner counsel submitted that a demand has been raised for the penalty, which is being challenged independently and therefore, would have no bearing on the release of the petitioner on regular bail. The court observed that the investigation is complete and challan stands presented, custody of the petitioner would no longer be required.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner be released on regular bail on execution of personal/surety bond in the sum of Rs. 10 lakh each to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to certain conditions.