Satya Prakash Singh Alias Sp Singh vs. The Union Of INDIA Through GST Council

Held

The Court, considering the period of custody of the petitioner, was inclined to enlarge him on bail. The Court directed the release of the petitioner, Satya Prakash Singh, upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Economic Offence, Jamshedpur. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to cooperate with the Investigating Officer during the investigation and to appear before the Investigating Authority once a fortnight until the completion of the investigation. The Court did not explicitly decide on the guilt or innocence of the petitioner, as this is a bail application, not a trial. The ratio decidendi for this decision is that prolonged custody, even in cases of alleged economic offences, can be a ground for granting bail, subject to the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation.

Facts

The petitioner, Satya Prakash Singh, is an accused under Section 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The allegation is that the petitioner illegally availed Input Tax Credit (ITC). The petitioner has been in custody since August 23, 2018. The revenue contends that the petitioner has illegally availed approximately Rs. 30 crores by way of ITC. This matter comes before the High Court as a bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, considering the nature of the alleged offence and the period of custody, under Section 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner's counsel argued for the grant of bail, likely emphasizing the period of custody as a primary ground. While not explicitly stated, the petitioner would typically argue for bail based on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the right to liberty. Revenue's Argument: The counsel for the opposite party (revenue) opposed the prayer for bail, highlighting the significant amount of alleged illegal ITC availed by the petitioner, stated to be approximately Rs. 30 crores. The revenue's opposition would be based on the gravity of the economic offence and the potential for the petitioner to abscond or tamper with evidence.