IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.
Harsimranjot Singh Bambhi – Petitioner
Versus
Superintendent Preventive Central Goods & Services Tax – Respondent
CRM-M-8844 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-02-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and the context of bail application. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding duration of custody and nature of charges. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's analysis of custody duration and trial status. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. granting bail and clarifications on court's observations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J. (Oral)
The present is a second petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in complaint No.COMA/15650/2021 dated 29.11.2021, titled as Superintendent (Anti Evasion) Central Goods & Services Tax v. 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 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 07.10.2021 which is more 1 year and 4 months and the case is still at the summoning stage on the basis of the complaint filed by the GST authorities. He submitted that there are number of accused in the present case and two co-accused namely, Rohit Mehta and Gurbax Lal have already been granted default bail. He further submitted that even under Section 132 of GST Act, the maximum sentence is five years irrespective of the total amount involved. He submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are pertaining to about Rs. 2, 67,00,000/- and even otherwise also it is less than Rs. 5 crores qua the petitioner and therefore it would be a bailable offence even as per Section 132 of GST Act. He submitted that be that as it may, the petitioner has already faced incarceration for more than 1 year and 4 months and the maxmium sentence otherwise even if it is more than Rs. 5 crores is five years. He submitted that the petitioner may be considered for the grant of regular bail and particularly in view of the fact that two co-accused have been granted default bail.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Sourabh Goel, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent has submitted that it is correct that the petitioner is in custody for more than 1 year and 4 months. He has however disputed that the allegations against the petitioner are only of Rs. 2,67,00,000/- whereas in fact the total amount involved in the present case is Rs. 13 crores. So far as the maximum sentence as provided under GST Act is concerned, the same is only upto five years.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The quantum of amount which the petitioner is involved is yet to be decided at the time of trial. Under Section 132 of the GST Act even if the amount is more than Rs. 5 crores, the maximum sentence is five years as per the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has already faced incarceration for more than 1 year and 4 months. The complaint is still at the summoning stage. The other two accused have already been extended the benefit of bail. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has stated that regarding recovery from the petitioner a separate show-cause notice is yet to be issued.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also considering the total custody of the petitioner which is more than 1 year and 4 months, this Court deems it fit and proper to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
7. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
8. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is meant for the purpose of deciding the present petition only.
The court reaffirmed that bail in economic offences must adhere to legal classifications; deposit of funds does not alter the non-bailable nature of offences exceeding specified monetary thresholds.
Unjust denial of bail despite identical allegations in a previous complaint and subsequent filing of a second complaint.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied based solely on the seriousness of charges, balancing individual liberty with societal interests.
Bail cannot be denied based solely on pending investigations of co-accused; each case must be evaluated individually, considering the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.