Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Arvinder Pal Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Superintendent (Prevention) of CGST Commissionerate – Respondent
CRM-M-15055 of 2022
Decided On : 27-03-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks anticipatory bail for fraud allegations. (Para 1) |
| 2. interim bail extended; no new allegations found. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. counsel's arguments for bail versus state opposition. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J.
| Complaint No. | Dated | Sections |
| COMA 6113/2022 | 18.02.2022 | 132(1) (b) (i) of CGST Act, 2017; Punjab State Goods and Services Act 2017 and punishable under Sections 132(1) (i) of CGST Act 2017 and 132(1) (i) of Punjab State GST Act 2017 both read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 |
The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, on the allegations of fraudulently availing input tax credits under GST, had come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.
2. Vide order dated 29-06-2022, the petitioner was granted interim protection by a co-ordinate bench, which is continuing till date.
3. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions. The petitioner's counsel argued that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.
4. The State's counsel opposes the bail.
REASONING:
5. Vide order dated 19-01-2023, this court had extended the interim bail subject to compliance of conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner's counsel stated that such order has been complied with. Thus, there would be no justification to keep this bail pending waiting for the proper investigation. The petitioner was granted interim protection, and during the interregnum, there is no allegation that he had intimidated the victim or victim's family or the witnesses or that he had hampered the investigation, or despite being called to join the investigation, he did not appear before the investigator. Given the above, there would be no justification to discontinue the interim protection, and the same is made absolute subject to the petitioner complying with the terms of all the interim bail orders.
Petition allowed in aforesaid terms. Interim order is made absolute subject to strict compliance of all terms and conditions. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal interpretation of anticipatory bail provisions, considering the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution and the nature ....
An accused petitioner does not forfeit bail conditions if he complies, and the court may extend interim bail even after charge sheet submission if no misuse is alleged.
Anticipatory bail granted despite serious economic offence allegations, emphasizing the principle of 'bail not jail' and the need for case-specific evaluation while ensuring compliance with investiga....
The court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. based on the nature of injuries and the applicant's cooperation in the investigation, emphasizing that merits of the case are not to be c....
The grant of bail is within the discretion of the court and must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner, with stringent conditions to prevent misuse.
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
