Shri Leslie D Sou vs. State By

Facts

The petitioner, Shri. Leslie D’Sou, Director of M/s. Spiegel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., filed a criminal petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking enlargement on bail. The bail was sought in connection with O.R.No.40/2018/19, registered for offences under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 132(1)(b) of the said Act. The case was pending before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru. The respondent was the State, represented by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Anti Evasion Section, GST, Commissionerate, Bengaluru East. The petitioner's counsel subsequently filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the petition.

Held

The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the criminal petition. The memo was placed on record. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn. No findings were made on the merits of the bail application or the alleged offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as the petition was withdrawn before any substantive arguments could be considered or decided by the Court. The operative direction was solely the dismissal of the petition due to its withdrawal by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with the alleged offences under Section 69 read with Section 132(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner, through his counsel, argued for bail, likely based on general principles of bail and potentially challenging the grounds for arrest or the severity of the alleged offences. The respondent, the State through the Superintendent of Central Tax, would have opposed the bail, likely highlighting the seriousness of the alleged tax evasion and the need for further investigation. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments made by either side regarding the merits of the bail application or the alleged offences. The primary procedural development was the petitioner's subsequent decision to withdraw the petition.