The application is allowed and petitioner-accused Vinod kumar agarwal is admitted to bail subject to furnishing personal bond.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 —Bail –-- The petitioner prayed for bail. The petitioner counsel submitted that the case of respondent is that invoices moved in circular from one party to another party whereas goods did not move. It is not case that anyone generated fake invoices. There is no loss of revenue whereas applicant had paid some amount in cash to the exchequer. It is mere assumption of respondent that invoices issued might be used by other parties to pay output tax. The maximum sentence prescribed under Section 132 of the Act is five years and the applicant is in custody for last about 15 months. The complaint filed by respondent shall be tried as warrant case and even till date pre-charge evidence has not started. Entire case is based upon record and entire record is in the custody of respondent. The respondent has already filed complaint before competent Court so applicant is neither required for investigation nor can influence witnesses. The court considered the totality of the facts and circumstances and trial not likely to be concluded in near future and accused having already spent a considerable duration in judicial custody.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Court allowed the application and admitted bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.
The application is allowed and petitioner-accused Vinod kumar agarwal is admitted to bail subject to furnishing personal bond.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 —Bail –-- The petitioner prayed for bail. The petitioner counsel submitted that the case of respondent is that invoices moved in circular from one party to another party whereas goods did not move. It is not case that anyone generated fake invoices. There is no loss of revenue whereas applicant had paid some amount in cash to the exchequer. It is mere assumption of respondent that invoices issued might be used by other parties to pay output tax. The maximum sentence prescribed under Section 132 of the Act is five years and the applicant is in custody for last about 15 months. The complaint filed by respondent shall be tried as warrant case and even till date pre-charge evidence has not started. Entire case is based upon record and entire record is in the custody of respondent. The respondent has already filed complaint before competent Court so applicant is neither required for investigation nor can influence witnesses. The court considered the totality of the facts and circumstances and trial not likely to be concluded in near future and accused having already spent a considerable duration in judicial custody.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Court allowed the application and admitted bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.