Case Law Details
Naresh Mittal & 2. Chhedi Lal Mittal Vs DGGI (Patiala House Court)
The facts are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. This is the first bail application jointly moved on behalf of accused persons namely, Naresh Mittal and Chhedi Lal Mittal after the filing of complaint by the Department. It is submitted that both the accused persons are sole bread earner of their families and they are languishing in jail since 19.11.2020. It is submitted that the first regular bail application was dismissed on 22.11.2020 on the ground that investigation was then at a very crucial stage. Further statutory bail application moved u/s 167 sub clause 2 Cr.P.0 was dismissed as complaint preceded the said application. It is submitted that now the investigation has been completed and the entire evidence is in custody of the department, the custody of the applicants is no longer required by the Department. It is submitted that trial would take long time and applicants pass the tripod test as they are not flight risk or they can tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. It is submitted that applicants have not been interrogated once since 22.11.2020. It is submitted that applicants have been cooperative throughout and considering their age, antecedents, conduct and change in circumstances they may be accorded bail subject to any just condition.
Application is opposed on behalf of Department submitting that the firms formed by accused persons were never found existing at their registered addresses and the documents uploaded in the GST Portal for obtaining registration by accused persons were also fabricated. Also, it is submitted that the said firms availed fake ITC to the tune of Rs.25 crores approximate.
Heard. Perused.
The grant of bail depends upon complex of facts and factors considered in the light of golden principles laid down from time to time by the higher Courts. In Dipak Subhash Chandra Mehta Vs. CBI : (2012) 4 SCC 134 Hon’ble Apex Court held that … “the Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding whey bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed serious offence.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
