Hardik Ishwarbhai Panchal VS State of Gujarat

The applicant has filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail in relation to a case registered with the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad. The charges against the applicant pertain to violations under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(k) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

During the hearing, the applicant’s counsel, a learned Senior advocate, argued for the applicant’s release on bail, citing the nature of the offense and proposing that bail could be granted with appropriate conditions in place.

The applicant has filed for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning a case registered with the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad. The charges pertain to Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(k) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

The applicant’s counsel argues for bail, emphasizing the nature of the offense and proposing suitable conditions for bail. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor representing the state opposes bail, citing the seriousness of the offense.

The respondent department’s senior advocate notes the complexity of the ongoing investigation, highlighting a breach of Rs. 217 crores in Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims. They mention that co-accused, who were allegedly manipulated by the applicant, have been granted bail due to delays in filing complaints caused by the investigation’s complexity. Additionally, they point out that crucial aspects of the investigation, such as identifying invoice suppliers and buyers and tracing the money trail through Angadia, are still pending.

Both parties’ advocates do not request further elaboration on the decision. After considering the arguments and reviewing the case documents, the following factors are taken into account: I) The investigation is deemed concluded since the complaint has been filed. II) The applicant has been in custody since August 22, 2021. III) The applicant’s counsel highlights that other accused involved in fraudulent ITC claims have been granted bail. IV) The maximum sentence for the offense is five years.

Based on these considerations, a decision regarding the applicant’s bail is reached.

The applicant has filed a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in relation to a case registered with the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(k) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

The applicant’s senior advocate argues for bail, suggesting that considering the nature of the offence, bail could be granted with suitable conditions. Conversely, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the state opposes bail, citing the seriousness of the offence.

The respondent’s senior advocate contends that the investigation is complex and ongoing, with an alleged breach of ITC claims amounting to Rs. 217 crores. They argue that co-accused, who were granted bail, were minor players in the scheme compared to the applicant. They highlight the complexities of the investigation, particularly regarding identifying invoice suppliers, buyers, and tracing money trails through Angadia.

Both parties’ advocates agree not to press for a detailed order. The court considers various factors: the conclusion of the investigation due to the filing of the complaint, the applicant’s custody since August 22, 2021, the release of co-accused on default bail, the maximum sentence for the offence, the applicant’s willingness to deposit Rs. One Crore within six months, and the absence of special circumstances against the applicant as per the investigating officer.

The court refers to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Sanjay Chandra case and, without delving into detailed evidence, finds it appropriate to grant the applicant regular bail considering the nature of the allegations.

Consequently, the application for bail is allowed. The applicant is granted regular bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including not misusing liberty, not obstructing the investigation, and surrendering any passport to the trial court within a week.

The applicant filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail in connection with a case registered with the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad. The charges against the applicant are under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(k) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

The applicant’s senior advocate argued for bail, proposing suitable conditions given the nature of the offense. Conversely, the Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State opposed bail, citing the gravity of the offense. The respondent’s senior advocate contended that the investigation was complex and ongoing, with alleged breaches amounting to Rs. 217 crores. They highlighted that co-accused, considered lower in the chain, had been granted bail due to delays in filing complaints amid complicated investigations.

It was further noted that crucial aspects of the investigation, including identifying invoice suppliers and buyers and tracing money through Angadia, remained pending. Both parties’ advocates didn’t press for a detailed order.

Considering the facts, the court deliberated on several points, including the conclusion of the investigation with the filing of the complaint, the applicant’s custody since a specified date, the bail granted to co-accused, and the absence of special circumstances against the applicant as per the Prosecutor’s instructions.

The court referenced legal precedents, including the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, before concluding that the case warranted bail. Thus, the application was allowed, and the applicant was granted bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to various conditions outlined by the court. These conditions included restrictions on the applicant’s movements, surrender of the passport, periodic deposits of a specified amount, and providing residence details to the Investigating Officer.

The court emphasized that the applicant could only be released if not required in connection with any other offense. Breach of bail conditions empowered the Sessions Judge to take appropriate action. The bail bond was to be executed before the trial court, which retained the authority to modify or relax conditions as per legal requirements. The court also directed that its preliminary observations on evidence should not influence the trial court’s proceedings.

In conclusion, the application for bail was granted with specific conditions, and the ruling was subject to direct service.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: