anticipatory bail was granted
|
Case Title |
Suresh Jajra Son Of Late Shri Bal Krishan Jajra vs Union Of India, Through Special Public Prosecutor |
|
Court |
Rajasthan High Court |
|
Honorable Judges |
Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha |
|
Citation |
2022 (8) GSTPanacea 155 HC Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11477/2022 |
|
Judgement Date |
04-August -2022 |
|
Council for Petitioner |
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Sudhir Sanga and Ravikant Chandok |
|
Council for Respondent |
Ms. Mahi Yadav, Mr. Yatharth Gupta |
The High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha, held that this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. from the order under G.S.T. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case. Petitioner is behind the bar since long. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner is neither owner of Ayodhya Food Products or nor partner of the firm. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner and other co-accused had retracted the statement given by him under Section 70 of GST Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that statement given by co-accused and other persons cannot be read against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that maximum punishment in this case is five years and conclusion of trial may take long time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that similarly situated coaccused Naresh Chandra Jajra and Abhishek Gehlot were enlarged on bail by this Court and by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. So, petitioner be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments in the case of Kishore Wadhwani Vs. State of MP; 2020(43)GSTL 145 (M.P.) where the court had granted bail to the applicant for the similar offence.
Learned counsel for the respondent (UOI) has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner had evaded GST of around Rs.54 Crores.
He is main culprit of the case. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that co-accused and other witnesses during the statement under Section 70 of GST Act clearly stated that petitioner is responsible person. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that Hon’ble Apex Court in various pronouncement clearly stated that the matter pertains to economic offence, should not be dealt as a general case. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that investigation is still pending. Chargesheet has not been filed against the petitioner. So, looking to the gravity of the offence, bail be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments: PV Ramana Reddy Vs. UOI, Vinaykant Ameta Vs. UOI (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.18243/2021) where the High Court had denied the bail because it was a serious economic offence.
anticipatory bail was granted
COURT HELD
The Court held that Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.Accordingly, the bail
application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Suresh Jajra Son Of Late Shri Bal Krishan Jajra shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
anticipatory bail was granted
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
By noticing the above order we analyse the conditions on which a person can be provided on anticipatory bail.
Download pdf:
Suresh Jajra Son Of Late Shri Bal Krishan Jajra
for reference visit: