Allowed

Jagat Singh @ Jaggi v. Union of India

Allahabad HC7 Oct 2021BAIL/18365/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant accused under the CGST Act. The Court held that the case is one for bail considering the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, nature of supporting evidence, and principles of Article 21. Bail was granted on personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount subject to certain conditions.

Jagat Singh @ Jaggi Vs Union of India — Company and Corporate | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18365 of 2021 Applicant :- Jagat Singh @ Jaggi Opposite Party :- Union of India Counsel for Applicant :- Sarwar Ali Siddique,Anshul Tiwari,Nikhil Kumar,Subhojeet Pathak,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dileep Chandra Mathur

¶2

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Dileep Chandra Mathura, learned Counsel for the opposite party and perused the record.

¶4

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case No.01 of 2021, under Section 132 (1) (b), 132 (i) CGST Act, Department of D.G.G.I., Meerut, District Meerut during the pendency of trial.

¶5

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant was arrested following an interrogation by the G.S.T. officials and implicated him by filing a criminal complaint with the allegation that the applicant deposited GST of about 31 Companies illegally. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that the charge sheet in the matter has been filed on 01.03.2021 and the investigation has already been completed . It is next contended that as per Section 132 (1) (iv) "in cases where he commits or abets the commission of an offence specified in clause (f) or clause (g) or clause (j), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both". It is also contended that the applicant was on interim bail vide order dated 28.05.2021, which was issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut as per guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court during Covid-19 Pandemic subject to furnishing two personal bonds of Rs.10 lacs . Lastly it is contended that the applicant is in jail since 01.01.2021 having no criminal history to his credit as stated in paragraph no.18 of the affidavit filed along with bail application and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶6

Learned Counsel for the opposite party has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶7

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any

¶8

opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶9

Let the applicant, Jagat Singh @ Jaggi involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶10

a. The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority.

¶11

b. They shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If they want to remain absent, then they shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and also to the Superintendent, CBI and request that they may be permitted to be present through the counsel. c. They will not dispute their identity as the accused in the case.

¶12

d. They shall surrender their passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, they are not a holder of the same, they shall swear to an affidavit. If they have already surrendered before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit.

¶13

e. We reserve liberty to the CBI to make an appropriate application for modification/recalling the order passed by us, if for any reason, the appellants violate any of the conditions imposed by this Court."

¶14

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶15

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶16

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶17

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶18

Order Date :- 7.10.2021

¶19

S.P.

Jagat Singh @ Jaggi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagat Singh @ Jaggi v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maya Thakur Vs State of U.P.

Umakant Vs State of U.P.

Raj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Vs State of U.P.

Chhatrapati Kesarwani Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.