Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.
Mohammed Ali Akram Khan – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13860 of 2022
Decided On : 06-04-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application filed under section 439 cr.p.c. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner claims wrongful implication and lack of summons. (Para 2) |
| 3. counsel discusses relevant precedents supporting bail. (Para 3) |
| 4. respondent argues economic offense and conditions for bail. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 5. court considers arguments presented by both parties. (Para 6) |
| 6. tax evasion deemed significant; previous rulings referenced. (Para 7) |
| 7. court grants bail with conditions. (Para 8) |
| 8. bail granted under specific financial conditions. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of complaint No. DGGI/INV/GST/227/2022-GR- D-O/O ADG-DGGI-ZU-JAIPUR for the offence(s) under Sections 132 (1) (b), (f), (h), (j) & (l) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case. He is behind the bars since 03.08.2022. Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that offence against the petitioner is triable by Magistrate, compoundable and having maximum punishment of 5 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that before arrest, no summon or demand notice was given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Mohammad Shadab Kadri is kingpin in this case. Petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Conclusion of trial may take long time. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Dipanshu Gupta v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3399/2022 decided on 13.04.2022; (2) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. in Miscellaneous Application No. 1849/2021 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191/2021 decided on 11.07.2022 ; (3) Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No. 742/2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5598/2020) decided on 27.11.2020; (4) Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar in Criminal Appeal No. 1277/2014 decided on 02.07.2014; (5) Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana v. State in Criminal Petition No. 2419/2020 decided on 11.06.2020; (6) Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India in SLP (Crl.) No. 10319/2022 decided on 05.12.2022; (7) Rakesh Kumar Khandelwal v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12440/2019 decided on 14.10.2019; (8) Hemant Kumar Singhal v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8676/2020 decided on 04.11.2020; (9) Anil Kumar Gupta v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15605/2020 decided on 19.02.2021; (10) Ashwani Kumar Bagpatiya @ golu v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 465/2021 decided on 05.03.2021; (11) Dananjay Singh v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18825/2021 decided on 05.02.2022; (12) Naresh Chandra Jajra v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1914/2022 decided on 25.02.2022; (13) Sanjeev Jain v. Union of India in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3608/2021 decided on 31.05.2021; (14) Gaurav Kumar Aanchaliya v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3624/2019 decided on 13.05.2019; (15) Chandu @ Chandra Prakash v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2381/2021 decided on 16.02.2021; (16) Pradeep Kumar Bansal v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12093/2020 decided on 04.11.2020; (17) Saurabh Kumar Jain v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2695/2021 decided on 16.08.2021 (18) Khem Chand Thathera v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13823/2022 decided on 03.01.2023; (19) Vishesh Sahal v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13658/2022 decided on 06.01.2023; (20) Vikas Bojoria v. Union of India in S.B. Criminal
The court held that bail may be granted in economic offences if the accused has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody for a considerable time, despite the seriousness of the allegations.
The court established that personal liberty must be protected and that the gravity of the offence alone cannot justify denial of bail.
Economic offences, especially involving large sums and serious allegations, require stringent scrutiny of the accused's conduct, including attempts to abscond and prior criminal history, to deny bail....
The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. due to the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents and the nature of the offence being compoundable.
Any offence under this Act may, either before or after institution of prosecution, be compounded by Commissioner on payment, by person accused of the offence, to Central Government or State Governmen....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
