Back
S.K.PANIGRAHI
Smruti Ranjan Mohanty – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha – Respondent
Key Points: - Bail is not to be withheld as punishment and there is no justification for classifying offences into different categories and refusing bail on that ground. (!) (!) - The two paramount considerations in bail decisions are the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice and the likelihood of tampering with prosecution evidence. (!) - The High Court has wide discretion under Section 439(1) and must exercise it judiciously, considering the nature of the offence, investigation stage, and other factors, without automatic denial of bail in economic offences. (!) (!) (!) - The Petitioners were granted bail with specific conditions, including cooperation with trial, no witness intimidation, no leaving India without permission, and potential cancellation for breaches or involvement in similar offences. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court directed that the assessment of tax liability be carried out strictly under applicable law and that its opinion on merits should not be treated as a decision on merits. (!)
JUDGMENT
S.K. Panigrahi, J. - The present Petitioners, who are in custody since 21.12.2020, have filed the instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to 2(C)CC Case No.03 of 2020 pending in the court of the Learned J.M.F.C(R), Cuttack for commission of offences under Sections 132(1) (c), 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(i) of the OGST Act, 2017. Prior to the instant application, the Petitioners had approached the learned District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack, vide Bail Application No. 11023 of 2020 which was rejected on 25.01.2021.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution's case is that both the Petitioners alongwith other accused, were involved in the creation and operation of 12 fictious/ bogus firms in the name of unconnected persons by misutilizing their identity proof. The same was done behind their back, in order to avail and utilize bogus input tax credit of an amount of Rs. 20.45 crores on the strength of fraudulent purchase invoices without any physical receipt or actual purchase of goods. As such both of them are alleged to be part of a collusion to evade taxes to the tune of approximately Rs. 42.00 crores and therefore are liable for the payment of the
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
