A. Mohideen VS Senior Intelligence Officer

These petitions seek to modify the conditions imposed in the statutory bail orders dated February 19, 2020, which were issued in Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions (Crl.M.P) Nos. 37 and 36 of 2020 concerning R.R. 42 and 41 of 2019, respectively, by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-I, Egmore. These bail conditions were later partially modified by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, through an order dated February 28, 2020, in Crl.M.P Nos. 4576 and 4575 of 2020.

The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were arrested in relation to R.R. No. 42 of 2019 under F.No. INV/DGGI/CZU/GST/110/2019 for offenses under Sections 132(1)(b) & (c) and 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. Similarly, the petitioners were also arrested in R.R. No. 41 of 2019 under the same file number for offenses under Sections 132(1)(b) & (c) and 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. The counsel for the petitioners stated that the arrests occurred on December 21, 2019. Since the final report had not been filed by the respondent police, the petitioners applied for statutory bail.

The bail orders were initially granted on February 19, 2020, by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-I, Egmore, but with certain conditions. The petitioners sought to modify these conditions. The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, partially modified these bail conditions through the order dated February 28, 2020. The present petitions seek further modification of the conditions imposed in these bail orders.

Several petitions have been filed to seek modifications of the conditions imposed in the statutory bail orders dated February 19, 2020, which were issued in Crl.M.P Nos. 37 and 36 of 2020 in R.R. Nos. 42 and 41 of 2019 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-I, Egmore. These bail conditions were later partially modified by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, on February 28, 2020, in Crl.M.P Nos. 4576 and 4575 of 2020.

The learned counsel for the petitioners presented that the petitioners were arrested in connection with R.R No. 42 of 2019 under F.No.INV/DGGI/CZU/GST/110/2019 for offences under Sections 132(1)(b) & (c) and 132(5) of the CGST Act 2017, and similarly in R.R No. 41 of 2019 for the same offences under the same sections of the CGST Act 2017. The counsel highlighted that the petitioners were taken into custody on December 21, 2019. As the respondent police did not file the final report, the petitioners applied for statutory bail. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-I, Egmore, Chennai, granted them statutory bail on February 19, 2020, in Crl.M.P Nos. 36 and 37 of 2020, under the condition that they deposit a cash surety of Rs. 5,00,000/- with the court and execute a bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties for an equivalent amount. Additionally, the petitioners were required to deposit title deeds of immovable properties worth not less than Rs. 20 lakhs that stood in their names before the Court.

The counsel argued that the requirement to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- was excessively burdensome and unreasonable, rendering the petitioners unable to meet this condition and consequently preventing them from being released on bail, despite the statutory bail order issued on February 19, 2020. Furthermore, the petitioners did not possess any property in their names, which added to their inability to comply with the bail conditions.

As a result, the petitioners sought modification of the bail conditions before the Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P Nos. 4576 and 4575 of 2020. On February 28, 2020, the Principal Sessions Judge partly modified the conditions by allowing the petitioners to deposit title deeds of immovable properties owned by any other person worth about Rs. 20 lakhs, while still requiring the cash deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

These petitions were filed to seek modifications of the bail conditions imposed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO-I, Egmore, in statutory bail orders dated 19.02.2020. The orders were related to Crl.M.P Nos.37 and 36 of 2020 in R.R.42 and 41 of 2019, respectively. These conditions were later partially modified by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, on 28.02.2020, in Crl.M.P Nos.4576 and 4575 of 2020.

The petitioners were arrested on 21.12.2019 for offenses under Section 132(1)(b) & (c) and 132(5) of the CGST Act 2017. They applied for statutory bail since the final report had not been filed by the police. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate granted bail on 19.02.2020 with conditions: a cash surety of Rs.5,00,000/- and a bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for the same amount, and the deposit of title deeds of immovable properties worth at least Rs.20 lakhs. The petitioners found the Rs.5,00,000/- cash deposit condition onerous and unreasonable, making it impossible for them to meet the condition and be released on bail. Additionally, they did not own property in their names to fulfill the title deed requirement.

The petitioners then filed for modification of the conditions before the Principal Sessions Judge, who partially modified the condition, allowing the deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- cash to be replaced by the deposit of title deeds of any other person’s property worth around Rs.20 lakhs. Despite this modification, the petitioners still could not meet the conditions and remained in jail since 21.12.2019, even though statutory bail was granted on 19.02.2020. The petitioners argued that the conditions imposed were impossible to comply with and indirectly defeated their indefeasible right under Section 167(2), which guarantees the right to bail.

The petitioners’ counsel contended that these conditions resulted in pre-trial detention, akin to pre-trial conviction, and emphasized that such onerous conditions cannot extinguish the petitioners’ statutory right to bail. They highlighted the petitioners’ permanent residency in Chennai and noted that continued detention, especially amid the Covid-19 pandemic, was unjust. The counsel cited a precedent from the 2019-1-LW(Crl.)387 case (Umadevi V. State) to support their argument for modifying the bail conditions.

In response, Mr. N.P. Kumar, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for DRI Cases, opposed the modification, arguing that the petitioners had floated fake companies to commit the offenses.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: