A division bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted bail to a GST accused charged under section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017.
The accused was produced before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana on 29.09.2021, and was remanded to judicial custody. The maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under the GST Act is five years. Hence complaint/challan was to be filed within 60 days. However, the respondent-department failed to file the complaint within 60 days of his first remand/detention and therefore, the petitioner filed an application for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 28.11.2021.
The Ld. JMIC (Duty) taking note of the fact that 60 days had elapsed without the complaint being filed ordered release of the petitioner vide order dated 28.11.2021, subject to certain conditions, including of furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1 Crore along with two local sureties in the like amount. However, on 28.11.2021 the petitioner could not furnish requisite bail bonds/surety bonds as one of the two sureties was not accepted.
Later, the order dated 28.11.2021 holding the right to bail of the petitioner as having been forfeited was challenged by the petitioner before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana by filing a revision petition. He also prayed for modification of the stringent conditions imposed. However, the revision petition filed by the respondent- Department was allowed. The order granting default bail to the petitioner under Section 167(2) CrPC was set aside.
Before the High Court, the petitioner-accused argued that the date of remand has to be included while calculating the sixty days period.
Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu noted that the conflicting views on the question of the inclusion or exclusion of the day of remand for the purpose of calculating the period, it is under consideration of the Larger bench of the Supreme Court in Enforcement Directorate Vs. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr.
Granting bail to the petitioner on conditions, the bench clarified that “in case the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is against the inclusion of the day of remand in calculating the period of custody, it would be open to the respondent to seek modification/ recalling of this order.”
Rohit Mehta VS Superintendent (Preventive), Central Goods & Services Tax
CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 106
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
