Allowed

Akshay Goyal v. Union of India and Another

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2023BAIL/44484/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad granted bail in a complaint case under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The court observed that the applicant was arrested without reasonable grounds, the offence is compoundable, and no tax recovery notice was issued, leading to the view that bail is a fit case.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including appearance in court and non-interference with witnesses.

Akshay Goyal Vs Union of India and Another — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:216283

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44484 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Akshay Goyal Opposite Party :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nikhil Chaturvedi,Praveen Kumar,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Parv Agarwal,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the Union of India and perused the record of the case.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant, Akshay Goyal, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Complaint Case No. 25182 of 2023, under Section 132(1)(b) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 768 of 2021, Police Station- Hariparvat, District- Agra, during the pendency of trial after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Agra vide order dated 30.09.2023.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has been arrested without assigning any reason to believe nor any satisfaction to justified his arrest as provided in the Code. It is further submitted that offences as alleged are punishable up-to 5 years imprisonment. It is further submitted that no notice for recovery of G.S.T. has been issued against the applicant and he is illegally arrested. It is further submitted that till date penalty or taxes has not been ascertained as per Act. It is further submitted that the offences are compoundable in nature and triable by Magistrate. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.07.2023. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶9

It is further submitted that applicant has criminal history of one

¶10

case, which has been duly explained in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It is next submitted that the applicant has no other previous criminal history except one case and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra , learned counsel for Union of India has supported the order passed by the Session court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in Basudev Mittal Vs. Union of India decided by Chhatisgarh High Court in MCRC No. 3919 of 2022 on 15.07.2022 , by which Special Leave petition against the order of Chattishgarh High Court was rejected by the Supreme Court on 12.12.2022. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶13

(a) The applicant has been arrested without assigning any reason to believe nor any satisfaction to justified his arrest as provided in the Act;

¶14

(b) Offences as alleged are punishable up-to 5 years imprisonment;

¶15

¶16

(d) Till date penalty or taxes has not been ascertained as per Act;

¶17

(e) Offences are compoundable in nature and triable by Magistrate;

¶18

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶19

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti

¶20

Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶21

Let applicant, Akshay Goyal, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶22

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶26

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶27

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

¶29

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the

¶30

release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶31

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶32

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶33

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.

¶34

Order Date :- 8.11.2023 Saurabh

¶35

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akshay Goyal v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay Goyal v. Union of India and Another

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

Ajay Kumar Vs Union of India and Another

Shubham Raj Raghuvanshi @ Subham Baliyan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhanu Prakash Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Israiel Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abubakar and 8 Others vs State of U.P.