Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka VS Union of India

The request being made is for a relaxation, modification, or complete waiver of the conditions of bail granted to the petitioners on July 9, 2018, and subsequently modified on July 12, 2018, in the case registered as CRAN 1800 of 2018. The original bail was granted by the Court in connection with Case No. C 216 of 2018, under Section 131(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The bail was initially granted on the condition that the petitioners furnish a bail bond of Rs. 50,00,000/- and further deposit Rs. 39 crore to the Government Exchequer through the Competent Authority. Additionally, the petitioners were directed to appear before the Investigating Officer/Authority conducting the investigation to assist in the ongoing proceedings and were required to continue appearing before the concerned authority until the final resolution of the case.

Now, the petitioners are seeking a relaxation, modification, or complete waiver of these bail conditions. It appears that the nature of the case or circumstances surrounding the petitioners may have changed, leading them to request alterations to the conditions initially imposed. The specific details of why these changes are being sought are not provided in this excerpt.

It’s evident that the petitioners are seeking relief from the financial burden imposed by the bail conditions and possibly from the obligation to appear before the investigating authority. The reasons behind this request could range from financial hardship to changes in the status of the investigation or the petitioners’ personal situations.

Overall, the petitioners are seeking the Court’s consideration for relaxation or modification of the bail conditions initially set, possibly due to changed circumstances or hardship.

The case in question pertains to a request for relaxation or modification of bail conditions initially granted on July 9, 2018, and subsequently amended on July 12, 2018, in CRAN 1800 of 2018. The petitioners were granted bail in connection with Case No. C 216 of 2018 under Section 131(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, with conditions including a bail bond of Rs. 50,00,000/- and a deposit of Rs. 39 crore to the Government Exchequer. Additionally, they were required to cooperate with the investigating authorities and appear before the designated judicial magistrate until the investigation concludes or the offense is compounded.

The initial bail conditions were later modified on July 12, 2018, allowing the petitioners to be released on a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 10 lakh each, with further conditions regarding the deposit of the evaded amount. However, despite these modifications, the petitioners remain in custody as they have been unable to fulfill the bail conditions imposed on July 12, 2018.

The petitioners’ advocate refers to a Supreme Court order dated September 12, 2018, in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6269-6270 of 2018, which granted permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petitions, preserving the petitioners’ right to pursue alternative legal remedies.

Moreover, the advocate highlights a bail order issued by the Sessions Judge, South 24-Parganas, Alipore, on August 8, 2018, granting anticipatory bail to a co-accused named Binod Kumar Kedia @ Vinod Kedia under certain conditions. Additionally, attention is drawn to a bail order by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated September 25, 2018, in B.A. No. 6909.

In summary, the petitioners seek relaxation or modification of their bail conditions based on the cited Supreme Court order and comparisons with bail orders granted to co-accused individuals in related cases.

This passage outlines a legal petition seeking relaxation or modification of bail conditions imposed on the petitioners in connection with a case under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The initial bail conditions, set on July 9, 2018, required the petitioners to furnish a bail bond of Rs.50,00,000/- and deposit Rs.39 crore to the Government Exchequer, among other obligations. These conditions were subsequently modified on July 12, 2018, allowing for a personal recognition bond of Rs.10 lakh each and a deposit of the evaded amount instead. However, the petitioners remain in custody as they have been unable to meet these conditions.

The petitioners’ advocate cites precedents and legal orders to support the request for relaxation of bail conditions. One such reference is a Supreme Court order dated September 12, 2018, allowing withdrawal of special leave petitions without prejudice to further legal actions. Additionally, examples of bail granted to co-accused in similar cases are highlighted, along with instances where courts have ruled certain bail conditions to be unreasonable.

The argument emphasizes the prolonged detention of the petitioners beyond the statutory period and draws attention to legal principles regarding the imposition of bail conditions. Specifically, it is argued that conditions should aim to prevent absconding and not be unduly burdensome or aimed at effecting recoveries from the accused.

Through these legal references and arguments, the petition seeks relief from onerous bail conditions in favor of conditions more conducive to the petitioners’ situation and in alignment with legal principles.

This passage delves into a legal case involving bail conditions and the plea for their relaxation. The petitioners seek to modify the bail conditions imposed on them in connection with a case under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Initially granted bail on July 9, 2018, and subsequently modified on July 12, 2018, the conditions included a bail bond of Rs. 50,00,000 and a deposit of Rs. 39 crore to the Government Exchequer, among other requirements.

Despite efforts, the petitioners remain in custody as they have been unable to meet the conditions set forth in the bail order. Their advocate cites legal precedents and orders from other cases to support their plea for relaxation of bail conditions. These include instances where co-accused were granted bail on different terms and situations where bail conditions were deemed unreasonable or excessive by higher courts.

The advocate also highlights a Supreme Court order allowing withdrawal of Special Leave Petitions, emphasizing the liberty available to seek appropriate remedies. Moreover, comparisons with other bail orders and legal rulings underscore inconsistencies and perceived unfairness in the current bail conditions.

References to specific legal cases, such as Raj Kumar Aggarwal v. Director General, Central Excise, and various Supreme Court judgments, provide a framework for arguing against the stringent conditions imposed on the petitioners. The argument centers on the principle that bail conditions should primarily aim to ensure the presence of the accused during trial proceedings, without unduly burdening them or infringing on their rights.

Ultimately, the plea for relaxation of bail conditions rests on the assertion that the current terms are excessive, unjustified, and hindering the petitioners’ right to liberty without serving the intended purpose of ensuring their appearance for trial.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: