Ashok Kumar Jain vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the suggestion made by the learned standing counsel for GST was fair and reasonable. The Court modified the bail condition, directing the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer once in every month for the next two months. Thereafter, the petitioner would appear as and when required by the Investigating Officer for the fair completion of the investigation. This modification was made under the powers vested by Section 397, 401, and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, acknowledging the petitioner's difficulties while ensuring the investigation could proceed. The Court found no reason to maintain the stringent weekly appearance requirement given the circumstances and the respondent's concession.

Facts

The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Jain, sought modification of a bail condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati. The original bail order in BA No. 363/2023, concerning Case No. DGCI/INV/FUP/51/2023 under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, required the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer once every seven days. The petitioner, a 60-year-old heart patient with a spinal disc problem, argued that weekly appearances from Kolkata for over seven months were difficult. The Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence (DGGI) did not object to relaxation but noted the investigation was ongoing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the bail condition requiring the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer once every seven days should be modified, considering the petitioner's age, health conditions, and the duration of compliance, under Section 397/401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner contended that his advanced age (60 years), heart condition, and spinal disc problem made weekly appearances from Kolkata arduous, despite his consistent compliance for over seven months. He expressed willingness to adhere to other conditions but found the current frequency impractical. The respondent (Union of India through DGGI) stated they had no objection to relaxing the weekly appearance condition. However, they emphasized the need for continued interrogation as the investigation was incomplete. They proposed a modification to monthly appearances for a limited period, followed by appearances as and when required.