Shri Akshay Jain vs. The Additional Assistant Director

Held

The High Court modified the order of the Special Court. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Additional Assistant Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Visakhapatnam Zonal Unit, once a month, specifically in the first week of every month on a Monday to Friday between 10:00 AM and 05:00 PM, for a period of four months, commencing from June 1, 2021. The petitioner was also directed to appear as and when required by the Directorate and cooperate with the investigation. The Court further stipulated that the petitioner shall not leave the State of Andhra Pradesh without the permission of the Additional Assistant Director. All other conditions imposed by the Special Court were to remain in effect. The Criminal Petition was disposed of with these modifications.

Facts

The petitioner filed a Criminal Petition before the High Court seeking relaxation of a condition imposed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences. The Special Judge, while granting bail in Crl.M.P.No.387 of 2020, directed the petitioner to appear before the Additional Assistant Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Visakhapatnam Zonal Unit, on the 15th and 26th of every month for six months. The petitioner argued that his statement was already recorded, his presence was not required for further investigation, and he was suffering from COVID-19, making it difficult to comply. The revenue contended that the petitioner had only appeared twice and had not appeared thereafter, despite the investigation being pending and the six-month period not having expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition imposed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences, requiring the petitioner to appear before the Directorate General of GST Intelligence twice a month for six months, should be relaxed, considering the petitioner's arguments regarding the completion of his statement, his health condition (COVID-19), and the impact on his family. 2. Whether the revenue's contention that the investigation is pending and the petitioner's non-compliance with the bail condition warrants denial of relaxation. Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner's statement has already been recorded, and his presence is not necessary for the ongoing investigation. - The petitioner is suffering from COVID-19, and his family is also affected, preventing him from appearing as directed. Revenue's Arguments: - The petitioner has only appeared twice since the bail order and has not appeared thereafter. - The investigation is still pending. - The gravity of the offences necessitates adherence to the bail conditions, especially as the six-month period has not concluded.