Back
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Vineet Jain – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. denial of bail despite minor offences (Para 3) |
| 2. observation on bail granting principles (Para 4) |
| 3. grant of bail and appeal allowance (Para 5) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent-Union of India.
3. The offences alleged against the appellant are under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine. A charge-sheet has been filed. The appellant is in custody for a period of almost 7 months. The case is triable by a Court of a Judicial Magistrate. The sentence is limited and in any case, the prosecution is based on documentary evidence.
There are no antecedents
4. We are surprised to note that in a case like this, the appellant has been denied the benefit of bail at all levels, including the High Court and ultimately, he was forced to approach this Court. These are the cases where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances.
5. By setting aside the impugned order dated 24th January, 2025
Bail – Bail can be granted keeping in view long period of custody.
Bail – Breach of conditions on which bail has been granted may lead to withdrawal of benefit granted.
The court granted bail based on the acknowledgment that the charges were triable by a Magistrate.
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
