The Commissioner Of Central Tax, GST, Delhi(West) vs. Adesh Jain

Facts

The Commissioner of Central Tax, GST, Delhi (West) (Petitioner) filed a petition challenging an order dated 05.02.2019 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) admitting the respondent, Adesh Jain, on bail. The respondent and a co-accused were allegedly involved in generating fake invoices and passing on Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual supply of goods, with fictitious sales exceeding ₹200 crores and tax evasion of ₹27,54,45,679/. The respondent was arrested on 31.07.2018. He was initially granted bail on 20.08.2018, but this order was set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) on 22.12.2018. The respondent then sought statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, as the investigation was not completed and no complaint was filed within sixty days of his custody. The CMM allowed this application, leading to the present petition.

Held

The Court held that the petition filed by the Petitioner had no merit. The Court found that Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the CrPC is a beneficial provision that grants relief to an accused when the investigating agency fails to complete the investigation within the prescribed period of sixty or ninety days. The right to apply for statutory bail under this section has been recognized as a constitutional right by the Apex Court. It was not disputed that the complaint had not been filed when the application for statutory bail was taken up, and the respondent had spent sixty days in custody. The Court noted that the complaint had still not been filed even at the time of the hearing of the present petition, which was more than five years after the respondent's arrest. The Court found it peculiar that the department was contesting the custody of the respondent when it was not taking the case to its logical conclusion. The Court also observed that there was no allegation of the respondent misusing the liberty granted by the bail order. The Court concluded that the Petitioner's interest appeared to be in the custody of the respondent rather than in the trial of the case, and filing proceedings in such circumstances constituted an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, despite his earlier bail order being set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge? The Petitioner argued that once bail was cancelled by the ASJ, no benefit under Section 167(2) of the CrPC could be granted. The Petitioner contended that the cancellation of bail by a superior court extinguished any right to statutory bail that might have arisen prior to the cancellation. The Respondent argued that the right to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is a constitutional right that arises if the investigation is not completed within the stipulated period, irrespective of prior bail orders being set aside, provided the conditions for statutory bail are met at the time of application. The Respondent emphasized that the complaint had not been filed within sixty days of his custody.