Petitioner | Tarun Jain |
Respondent | Directorate General Of GST Intelligence DGGI |
Decision by | Delhi High Court |
Date of order or Judgement | 26-November-2021
|
Citation no. | 2021 (11) GSTPanacea 9 HC Delhi |
Hon’ble Judge | Justice Chandra Dhari Singh |
Decision | In Favour of Assessee |
Anticipatory bail is a statutory right and custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor provided under the CGST Act & detaining the Petitioner in judicial custody would serve no purpose rather would adversely impact the business of the Petitioner
Anticipatory Bail is Statutory Right-Facts of the Case
Anticipatory Bail is Statutory Right-The Petitioner is one of the director in M/S Jetibai Grandsons Services India Pvt. Ltd, engaged in the supply of solar inverters, solar power generating units, and like products.
The respondent has alleged that the Company of which the petitioner is a director, along with other firms namely M/s Microlyte Energy (P) Limited, M/s Sun Automation Limited, M/s Urja Global Limited and M/s NYX Industry India (P) Ltd. are involved in fraudulently availing and passing on ineligible/fake Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 72,00,00,000/-
The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in a matter pertaining to Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. Another Application bearing CRL. M.A. – 16552/2021 has also been filed before this Court under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code seeking ad-interim protection from coercive action that might be taken by the Respondent during the pendency of the Anticipatory Bail Application.
Delhi High Court Held
Anticipatory Bail is Statutory Right-The Hon’ble Delhi High Court Noted that, the Petitioner has been accused of an offence under Section 132(b) and (c) of the CGST Act and are non-bailable and cognizable. Further noted that, under Section 135 of the CGST Act, in any prosecution under the CGST Act requiring culpable mental state, the Court is bound to presume culpable mental state of the accused and the accused will have a defence to prove that he had no such mental state. Also, Section 138 of the CGST Act states that the offences under the CGST Act shall be compoundable either before or after the prosecution.
Observed that, the Petitioner has placed on record several documents in the petition in order to corroborate the fact of his and his mother’s ill health the document supporting the factum of his ill health has also been supported via proper documents in the respective replies to summons.
Further observed that, there cannot be any conflict with the fact that the Petitioner has been charged with economic offence. However, it is to be reiterated that the offence does not contemplate punishment for more than 5 years or commission of any serious offence along with the economic offence as it is usually the case in offences under other special statutes dealing with economic offences. Thus, as per the scheme of the CGST Act, though the offence is of economic nature yet the punishment prescribed cannot be ignored to determine the heinousness of the offence. Moreover, offences under the CGST Act are not grave to an extent where the custody of the accused can be held to be sine qua non.
Opined that, anticipatory bail is a statutory right in consonance with the Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is essential to be alive to the various facets that form a part of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Stated that, the Court must give effect to Article 21 of the Constitution in letter as well as in spirit while deciding the anticipatory bail application. The basic tenet on which criminal justice system operates is “innocent until proven guilty” and in view of the same, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has time and again reiterated that “bail is the rule while jail is an exception”. Such principles cannot remain a dead letter of law and this court must intervene to give effect to such principles which has been enshrined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in numerous decisions.
Allowed the bail application and held that, anticipatory bail is a statutory right and custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor provided under the CGST Act and detaining the Petitioner in judicial custody would serve no purpose rather would adversely impact the business of the Petitioner.
Directed that, the Petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of INR 5,00,000/- with two solvent sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Apprehending Authority with the terms and conditions wherein, the Petitioner shall:
1)Surrender its passport before the Investigating Officer/Apprehending Authority and under no circumstances leave India without prior permission.
2)Cooperate in the investigation and appear when summoned.
3)Not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
4)Drop a PIN on Google map to ensure that its location is available.
5)Commit no offence whatsoever during the period of bail.
Download PDF
TARUN-JAIN
For Reference Visit
Delhi High Court