SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. BOPANNA, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
Ratnambar Kaushik – Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10319 of 2022
Decided on : 05-12-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Section 132(1)(a),(h),(k) and (l) read with Section 132(5) – Bail – Refusal by High Court – Gist of allegations against petitioner in prosecution initiated against him is that petitioner had clandestinely transported raw unmanufactured tobacco brought from Gujarat by 7 trucks weighing 90,520 Kgs. – It is alleged that such procurement of unmanufactured tobacco is for clandestine manufacture and supply of Zarda without payment of leviable duties and taxes – Petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than four months and completion of trial, in any event, would take some time – In a case of present nature, evidence to be tendered by respondent would essentially be documentary and electronic – Ocular evidence will be through official witnesses due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing – Keeping all these aspects in perspective, in facts and circumstances of present case, it is proper to grant prayer made by petitioner – Bail granted. (Paras 5, 6 and 7)
Facts of the case:
Vide impugned order High Court has dismissed application filed by the petitioner hereunder under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure1 seeking bail in the proceedings for the offence alleged against him under Section 132(1)(a),(h),(k) and (l) read with Section 132(5) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Findings of Court:
Petitioner be released on bail subject to conditions to be imposed by trial Court, which among others, shall also include condition to direct the petitioner to deposit his passport. Further, such other conditions shall also be imposed by the trial Court to secure the presence of petitioner to diligently participate in the trial.
Result : Special Leave Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is before this Court, assailing the order dated 21.10.2022, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.12475 of 2022. Through the said order the High Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner hereunder under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure1[For short “Cr.P.C.”] seeking bail in the proceedings for the offence alleged against him under Section 132(1)(a),(h),(k) and (l) read with Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20172[For short “GST”].
2. Heard Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, Shri Maninder Singh learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Shri Balbir Singh learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent. In that light, we have perused the petition papers as also the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent.
3. The gist of the allegations against the petitioner in the prosecution initiated against him is that the petitioner had clandestinely transported raw unmanufactured tobacco brought from Gujarat by 7 trucks weighing 90,520 kgs. It is alleged that raw tobacco was cleared in the name of M/s Maa Ambey Enterprises, Bakoli from M/s Arihant Traders, Kheda, Gujarat but the said trucks went to Patparganj Area to M/s Galaxy Tobacco in Delhi. It is further alleged that the said quantity of unmanufactured tobacco has been apparently used in the clandestine manufacture and supply of chewing tobacco without payment of leviable duties and tax. The petitioner contends that even if the tax is levied at 28%, the value would be around Rs.10,30,824/-. However, as per the case of the respondent, the total tax/duty and cess involved would be Rs.15,57,28,345/-. The said contention has been raised on the basis of the projected manufacture of zarda pouches from the said quantity of unmanufactured tobacco. Thus on the projected number of pouches, the tax amount if taken into consideration, would be to that extent. It is further contended on behalf of the respondent that in the course of the investigation it has also come to light, apart from the 7 trucks, 287 more trucks loaded with raw unmanufactured tobacco has been transported as per the details obtained from the Toll/RFID data of NHAI, which shows the movement of the trucks.
4. Insofar as the allegations made against the petitioner are concerned, learned senior counsel for the petitioner while rebutting the same would contend that at this juncture, such allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner are far-fetched. Even if one accepts as correct, the allegation on which the proceedings is predicated, wherein 90,520 kgs. of raw/unmanufactured tobacco in 7 trucks is taken note of, the GST, if reckoned, comes to only Rs.1,93,26,020/-. It is contended that the sum of Rs.11,04,34,400/-shown as cess by the respondent is even without the proof of manufacture of zarda and it has been done only to indicate the projected value of more than Rs.15 Crores. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner therefore disputed the allegations and contended that such allegations have been made only to allege cognizable and non-bailable offence against the petitioner so as to deny bail and take him into custody.
5. Though allegations and counter allegations are made, at this stage, it would not be necessary for us to advert to the details of the rival contentions, since the matter in any event is at large before the trial court and any observations on merits herein would prejudice the case of the parties, therein. However, for the limited purpose of answering the prayer for the grant of bail, the contentions are taken note of. It is no doubt true, that an allegation is made with regard to the transportation of unmanufactured tobacco and it is alleged that such procurement of unmanufactured tobacco is for clandestine manufacture and supply of zarda without payment of leviable duties and taxes. Though it is further contended that i
Bail – In a case where ocular evidence will be through official witnesses due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing, bail can be granted to accused.
The court established that in cases of economic offences, while the gravity of the allegations is significant, the presumption of innocence and the nature of evidence must also be considered when dec....
The court's discretion in granting bail based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner's innocence plea, and the objections raised by the prosecution.
The court grants bail by balancing the duration of judicial custody and the recovery of evidence against the accused's criminal antecedents, provided strict conditions appear sufficient to ensure tri....
The court established that personal liberty must be protected and that the gravity of the offence alone cannot justify denial of bail.
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.