Criminal court rejected a bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. because the petitioner previously sought similar relief which was dismissed on merits, failed to challenge that order, and did not appear before or cooperate with the Investigating Officer.
Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed; Interim bail (I.A.1 of 2021) disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9833/2021
BETWEEN :
PRAVEEN SUVARNA S/O SOMAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS PROP. OF M/s. VIGNESHWARA TRANSPORT COMPANY NEAR A.G. TRUCK TERMINAL BANGALORE ROAD N.H.4 CHITRADURGA-577 501 KARNATAKA.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI: VENKATESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) AND : THE STATE OF KARNATAKA COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST BENGALURU NORTH-WEST COMMISSIONERATE 2ND FLOOR, SOUTH WING BMTC BUS STAND COMPLEX SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 051. REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: AMIT ANAND DESHPANDE, Sr. STANDING COUNSEL)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN PROCEEDINGS NO.CBIC-DIN20211057YX000000ED14 DATED 13.10.2021 U/S 69 OF THE CGST ACT, 2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-C FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCE
2
SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE(a) OF (b) OR (c) OR (d) OF SUB-SEC(1) OF SEC.132 WHICH IS PUNISHABLE UNDER CLAUSE(i) OR (ii) OF SUBSECTION(1) OR SUB-SEC(2) OF THE SUB-SECTION FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail and to release him on bail in the event of his arrest by the Commissioner of Central Excise and GST in Proceeding No.CBIC-DIN-20201157YZ0000777F65 under Sections 69, Clause (a) or (b) or (c) or (d) of Section 132(1) and as per Section 132(4) and Clause (a), (b), (c) or (d) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘CGST Act’).
3
respondent had not followed the procedure as contemplated under law for holding such raid, but they acted rudely, harassed the petitioner and his team. They indulged in aggressive and physical abuse. The nephew of the petitioner by name Sachin Amin was illegally detained and was taken away by the respondent-officers to an unknown location. They have ransacked the petitioner’s house and seized the same after affixing summons under Section 70(1) of the CGST Act, calling upon the petitioner to be present before the respondent at 10.00 a.m. on 01.12.2020. The petitioner was also called upon to carry along with him the copies of invoices/bills from July 2017 till date, copies of balance sheet for the years 2017-2018 to 2020-2021 and copies of the agreement/contract.
4
are available in the public domain and the respondent could easily access to all those documents. The petitioner was not required to be summoned to appear before the respondent to produce those documents. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that summoning him by the respondent is only with an ulterior motive to tease and harass him.
the petitioner and Sri.Amit Anand Deshpande, learned Senior
5
Standing Counsel for the respondent-State. Perused the materials placed on record.
6
that, the petitioner has not chosen to appear before the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled
for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:
R E A S O N S
7
Investigating Officer and the petitioner has not co-operated with the Investigating Officer. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to allow the petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
IA.1 of 2021 filed for interim anticipatory bail is
disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
*bgn/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
PRAVEEN SUVARNA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
M.G. UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
