JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.

Heard Sri Anup Trivedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Vineet Bhatia and Shri Abhinav Gaur, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for Union of India and perused the material on record.

2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Ravinder Nath Sharma@ Ravubder Sharma under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1 of 2023 for offense punishable under Sections 132 (1)(I) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Meerut vide order dated 26.05.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has been arrested without assigning any reason to believe nor any satisfaction to justified his arrest as provided in the Code. It is further submitted that offences as alleged are punishable up-to 5 years imprisonment. It is further submitted that no notice for recovery of G.S.T. has been issued against the applicant and he is illegally arrested. It is further submitted that till date penalty or taxes has not been ascertained as per Act. It is further submitted that the offences are compoundable in nature and triable by Magistrate. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.02.2023. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another , (2021) 10 SCC 773 .

4. He has next argued that the applicant has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for Union of India has supported the order passed by the Session court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

6. After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

(a) The applicant has been arrested without assigning any reason to believe nor any satisfaction to justified his arrest as provided in the Act;

(b) Offences as alleged are punishable up-to 5 years imprisonment;

(c) No notice for recovery of G.S.T. has been issued against the applicant and he is illegally arrested;

(d) Till date penalty or taxes has not been ascertained as per Act;

(e) Offences are compoundable in nature and triable by Magistrate;

7. It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

8. Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of