Harsimranjot Singh Bambhi VS Superintendent Preventive Central Goods

The document pertains to a second petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking regular bail for the petitioner in the case numbered COMA/15650/2021, dated November 29, 2021. The case, titled Superintendent (Anti Evasion) Central Goods & Services Tax Versus Gurbax Lal @ Happy Nagpal & others, is filed under Section 132 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 132 of the Punjab Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, in conjunction with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

The counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has been in custody since October 7, 2021, which amounts to more than one year and four months. Despite this prolonged period of custody, the case remains at the summoning stage based on the complaint lodged by the GST authorities. The counsel highlights that there are multiple accused involved in the case, with specific reference to two co-accused, namely Rohit Mehta and Gurbax Lal.

The current petition seeks bail for the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is involved in a case titled Superintendent (Anti Evasion) Central Goods & Services Tax Versus Gurbax Lal @ Happy Nagpal & others, under Section 132 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 132 of the Punjab Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, along with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

The petitioner has been in custody since October 7, 2021, which totals to over a year and four months. The case is still at the summoning stage, initiated by the complaint filed by the GST authorities. It’s noted that there are several accused in this case, and two co-accused, Rohit Mehta and Gurbax Lal, have already been granted default bail.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that under Section 132 of the GST Act, the maximum sentence is five years, regardless of the amount involved. The allegations against the petitioner amount to approximately Rs. 2,67,00,000, which is less than Rs. 5 crores concerning the petitioner, making it a bailable offense under Section 132 of the GST Act. Furthermore, even if the amount were higher, the maximum sentence would still be five years. Given that the petitioner has already spent over a year and four months in custody and considering that two co-accused have been granted default bail, the petitioner requests the court to grant regular bail.

petitioner argued that the petitioner has been in custody for over a year and four months, while the case is still at the summoning stage. The complaint, filed by GST authorities, alleges offenses under Section 132 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 132 of the Punjab Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, along with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

The petitioner’s counsel emphasized that two co-accused have already been granted default bail, implying that the petitioner should also be granted bail. They argued that even under Section 132 of the GST Act, the maximum sentence is five years, irrespective of the amount involved, which in this case, they claimed, is around Rs. 2,67,00,000/-. Additionally, they contended that even if the amount involved exceeded Rs. 5 crores, it would still be a bailable offense.

However, the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent disputed the amount involved, asserting it to be Rs. 13 crores. He acknowledged the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration but stressed the severity of the allegations.

The court observed that the exact amount involved is yet to be determined at trial. It noted that even if the amount exceeds Rs. 5 crores, the maximum sentence under the GST Act remains five years. Considering the petitioner’s extended custody period, the fact that the case is still at the summoning stage, and that two co-accused have already been granted bail, the court inclined towards granting bail to the petitioner.

The case at hand involves a petition for the grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the petitioner, who is facing charges under Sections 132 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Punjab Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, along with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner has been in custody since 07.10.2021, totaling over 1 year and 4 months, with the case still at the summoning stage based on a complaint by GST authorities.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that despite allegations amounting to approximately Rs. 2,67,00,000/-, which would typically constitute a bailable offense under Section 132 of the GST Act, the petitioner has been in custody for an excessive duration, especially considering that two co-accused have already been granted default bail. On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel disputes the amount involved, claiming it to be Rs. 13 crores, and asserts that the maximum sentence under the GST Act is five years, regardless of the amount.

The court considers the arguments presented by both parties. It acknowledges that the exact quantum of the amount involved is yet to be determined during trial. Despite the respondent’s assertion regarding the larger amount, the maximum sentence under the GST Act remains five years. Given the petitioner’s prolonged custody, exceeding 1 year and 4 months, and the fact that two co-accused have already been granted bail, the court deems it appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

Consequently, the court allows the petition, ordering the release of the petitioner on regular bail upon the fulfillment of bail bond requirements to the satisfaction of the trial court or the Duty Magistrate. However, the court clarifies that its decision on bail should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, serving the sole purpose of deciding the present petition.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:
Punjab and Haryana High Court

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case law