Case Law Details

Case Name : Naresh Mittal & 2. Chhedi Lal Mittal Vs DGGI (Patiala House Court)
Appeal Number :
Date of Judgement/Order : 02/02/2021
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (6444)

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.

The Court granting bail has to consider, among other circumstances, the factors such as:

a) The nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;

b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support with the charge.

In addition to the same, the court while considering a petition for grant of bail in a non bailable offence apart from the seriousness of the offence, likelihood of the accused fleeing from the justice and tampering with the prosecution witness, have to be noted.

In Anil Mahajan Vs. Commissioner of Customs: (2000) 84 DLT 854 it was held that “there is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of such discretion by the Courts. There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting of refusing bail. The answer to the question whether to grant bail or

1. Naresh Mittal & 2. Chhedi Lal Mittal Vs. DGGI, Gurugram Zonal Unit not depends upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be teated as a universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail ….

In the given facts, accused persons are languishing in jail since 19.11.2020 and there is substantial change in circumstances as investigation has been completed and the Department has filed complaint. The trial would going to take long time in the given circumstances and in these circumstances, the further incarceration of the accused would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, considering the fact that investigation has been completed and they are no longer required for custodial interrogation, both the accused persons i.e. Naresh Mittal and Chhedi Lal Mittal are hereby accorded bail subject to furnishing PS/SB of Rs.5,00,000/ each with following conditions:

1. That the accused persons shall join the investigation as and when directed by the investigating agency.

2. The accused persons shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses which will be examined by the department during investigation.

3. That accused persons shall not leave the country without the permission of the Court and deposit his passport with the 10 within seven days.

4. That accused persons shall not indulge in similar offence in future.

5. That accused persons shall appear before the Court on each and every date of hearing.

The application stands disposed off.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

March 2021