HC Grants Bail to co-accused in GST Scam involving Tax amount of 35 Crore

State of Gujarat Vs Mitesh Dilipbhai Sejpal (Gujarat High Court)

Introduction: This article delves into the Gujarat High Court’s judgment on the petition filed by the State against the order granting regular bail to Mitesh Dilipbhai Sejpal. The court’s considerations, legal arguments, and the impact of the ruling are analyzed for a comprehensive understanding of the case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Petition Details: The State filed a petition under Section 439(2) seeking to quash the order granting regular bail to Mitesh Dilipbhai Sejpal by the District & Sessions Judge, Junagadh, on 11.11.2021.

2. Legal Arguments:

• The State’s argument centered on the alleged failure of the Sessions Court to consider crucial factors for bail, including objections filed by the complainant.
• The State emphasized the creation of bogus documents in the form of e-way bills, constituting a substantial scam of over Rs. 700 crores.

3. Court’s Considerations:

• The court referred to a precedent (Bhagwan Singh v Dilip Kumar) emphasizing that bail cancellation requires overwhelming circumstances and should not be done mechanically.
• The State’s arguments were contested by Mr. Mehta, who highlighted a similar case where a co-accused was granted bail by a Coordinate Bench.

4. Observations from the Bench:

• The court found no supervening circumstances to warrant bail cancellation, especially considering a similar case where a co-accused’s bail order remained unchallenged.
• Reference was made to a recent Supreme Court decision (Kekhriesatuo Tep and others vs. National Investigating Agency) to support the opinion that prima facie opinions must not be deemed perverse or impossible.

Conclusion: The Gujarat High Court dismissed the State’s petition, upholding the order granting regular bail to Mitesh Dilipbhai Sejpal. The court’s decision, guided by legal precedents and considerations, emphasizes the need for substantial grounds to cancel bail. This ruling sets a precedent for cases where co-accused have secured bail, and no supervening circumstances are evident, reinforcing the importance of fair trial considerations.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Rule. Learned Advocate, Mr. Mehta, waives service for the Respondent.

1. By way of the present petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner State has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 11.11.2021, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 651 of 2021, whereby, the learned Session Judge has granted regular bail to the respondent – original accused.

2. Heard learned APP for the petitioner State and learned Advocate, Mr. Mehta, for the Respondent-accused.

3. In ‘Bhagwan Singh v Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @Depak’, reported in 2023 INSC 7613, the Hon’ble Apex Court after considering the judgment in case of ‘Dolat Ram v State of Haryana’, (1995) 1 SCC 349; ‘Kashmira Singh v Duman Singh’, (1996) 4 SCC 693, and ‘X v State of Telangana’, (2018) 16 SCC 511, held as follows:

’13. It is also required to be borne in mind that when a prayer is made for the cancellation of grant of bail cogent and overwhelming circumstances must be present and bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it in conducing to allow fair trial. This proposition draws support from the Judgment of this Court in Daulat Ram and others v. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh (1996) 4 SCC 693 and xxx v. State of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511.’

4. Learned APP though strongly argued to cancel the bail on submission that the concerned Court, while granting bail did not consider the factors to be considered for granting or rejecting the bail. It was also argued that the learned Sessions Court has failed to notice the detailed affidavit / objections filed by the original complainant. It was submitted that the concerned Court also failed to take note of the fact that bogus documents were created in the form of e-way bills, though, no actual transaction had taken place and thereby, a huge scam to the tune of more than Rs.700/- crore, involving the tax of 35/- crore is committed. However, she failed to submit any supervening circumstances being rendered in conducing to allow fair trial or breach of any condition of bail.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Mehta, supported the impugned order and submitted that the case of the co-accused was considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and he was granted regular bail vide order dated 11.07.2019, passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9641 of 2019. It was submitted that the aforesaid order has not been challenged, till date. It was, therefore, prayed that this petition be dismissed.

6. Thus, this Court finds no circumstances, more particular, when the co-accused is granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and such order has remained un-challenged, till date, to adjudge the impugned order as unjust and contrary to the settled principles of law. As held earlier, the petitioner has failed to point out supervening circumstances, which may interfere with the fair trial.

7. Before parting with the order, I may also refer to the observations made in the recent decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kekhriesatuo Tep and others Vs. National Investigating Agency reported in (2023) 6 SCC 58. The relevant observation made in para 19 reads as under:-

“19. The learned Special Judge has himself distinguished cases of the persons who have indulged into extortion for furthering the activities of the organization and the persons like the present appellants, who were government servants, and compelled to contribute the amount. We, therefore, find that it cannot be said that the prima facie opinion, as expressed by the learned Special Judge, could be said to be perverse or impossible.”

8. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed.

Rule is discharged.