Keeping the accused behind bar will not help the investigating agency, therefore bail application is admitted
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail -- The applicant prayed for bail, for the offences committed under section 132 of the Act, on the ground that he is in custody since 25.03.2021 and almost 39 days have passed and applicant is no more required in custody as custodial interrogation was not sought. The petitioner relied the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Akhil Krishan Maggu and Anr. v. Dy. Director of DGGI & others in CWP No.24195 of 2019 and the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Make My Trip vs. Union of India 2016 (44) STR 481 (DELHI). The respondent counsel submitted that investigation is still going on and is likely to unearth details of suppliers from who he had received fake invoices. That accused has caused a huge loss to the tune of Rs. 7-8 crores, which has been admitted by him. The court observed that the applicant is in custody since 25.03.2021. He was straightaway sent to judicial custody is prima facie indicative of the fact that he is not required for custodial interrogation. It is not clear that complaint shall or shall not be filed in the stipulated time.
Held that:-The Hon’ble Court granted bail to the applicant on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with one surety of equal amount, subject to certain conditions.
Keeping the accused behind bar will not help the investigating agency, therefore bail application is admitted
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail -- The applicant prayed for bail, for the offences committed under section 132 of the Act, on the ground that he is in custody since 25.03.2021 and almost 39 days have passed and applicant is no more required in custody as custodial interrogation was not sought. The petitioner relied the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Akhil Krishan Maggu and Anr. v. Dy. Director of DGGI & others in CWP No.24195 of 2019 and the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Make My Trip vs. Union of India 2016 (44) STR 481 (DELHI). The respondent counsel submitted that investigation is still going on and is likely to unearth details of suppliers from who he had received fake invoices. That accused has caused a huge loss to the tune of Rs. 7-8 crores, which has been admitted by him. The court observed that the applicant is in custody since 25.03.2021. He was straightaway sent to judicial custody is prima facie indicative of the fact that he is not required for custodial interrogation. It is not clear that complaint shall or shall not be filed in the stipulated time.
Held that:-The Hon’ble Court granted bail to the applicant on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with one surety of equal amount, subject to certain conditions.