Case Law Details
CA Sandeep Kanoi
While Bombay HC has refused to grant bail application pending payment of Service tax for service tax evasion for the period starting before 10.05.2013 in the case of Kandra Rameshbabu Naidu but on the other hand Kolkutta High Court in the case of Sudip Das granted to bail to accused who had been charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 89(1)(d) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Hon’ble Kolkutta HC further held that It is correct that the offence is alive till now but it is not less than correct that when it was originated, the offence was bailable in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is also reckoned that the new Act does not have any retrospective effect.
If this be so, the question of bailability and non-bailability almost comes to a point of merger, the benefit of which should be extended to the accused person. Be that as it may, on the following terms and conditions, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner:-
i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.30,000/-, with two sureties of Rs.15,000/- each, one of whom must be local to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North 24-Parganas, Barasat.
ii) The petitioner shall meet the complainant every alternate day till the filing of the application or further order whichever is earlier.
iii) The petitioner shall furnish his telephone numbers both land and mobile, with the complainant so that he may be available on call.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the State of West Bengal without permission of the Court.
v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the complainant.
vi) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakhs with the complainant authority, with ten days from the date of his release.
NF
Author Bio
