The petitioner has not been able to make out a case of supervening circumstances on the basis of which the bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled and nothing has been brought on record to show that the respondents have such a towering personality that their mere presence out on bail would in any manner thwart the further investigation of the case or that they are in any manner threat to the fair trial of this case. There is no reason for pre-trial incarceration of the respondents in the present case.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail -- The applicant sought directions to set aside the order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Ld. A.S.J., New Delhi, Patiala House Courts, thereby, granting anticipatory bail to the respondents. The applicant department alleged that the respondent company availed huge ITC from firms that have been proved to be fictitious and non-existent during the investigation. The applicant further averred that ignoring the statements of the respondents about the vital aspects of the matter, the impugned order was passed, whereby the respondents were granted benefit of anticipatory bail upon condition of deposit of 10% of the alleged duty evasion amount. The court observed that the respondents have joined the investigation and there are no allegations that they have not co-operated in the said investigation. There are no allegations of any tampering or influencing of the witnesses. There are also no allegations that the respondents are flight risk or there is any likelihood of their absconding.
Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition
The petitioner has not been able to make out a case of supervening circumstances on the basis of which the bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled and nothing has been brought on record to show that the respondents have such a towering personality that their mere presence out on bail would in any manner thwart the further investigation of the case or that they are in any manner threat to the fair trial of this case. There is no reason for pre-trial incarceration of the respondents in the present case.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail -- The applicant sought directions to set aside the order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Ld. A.S.J., New Delhi, Patiala House Courts, thereby, granting anticipatory bail to the respondents. The applicant department alleged that the respondent company availed huge ITC from firms that have been proved to be fictitious and non-existent during the investigation. The applicant further averred that ignoring the statements of the respondents about the vital aspects of the matter, the impugned order was passed, whereby the respondents were granted benefit of anticipatory bail upon condition of deposit of 10% of the alleged duty evasion amount. The court observed that the respondents have joined the investigation and there are no allegations that they have not co-operated in the said investigation. There are no allegations of any tampering or influencing of the witnesses. There are also no allegations that the respondents are flight risk or there is any likelihood of their absconding.
Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition