Arindam Chaudhuri (In Custody) vs. Commissioner Of CGST, Delhi South
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner had been granted statutory bail on 21.10.2020 under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Cr.PC, 1973, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the learned CMM, New Delhi. This fact was not refuted by the respondent. Consequently, the Court found that the present petition had become infructuous. The Court did not delve into the merits of whether the 15% deposit condition was harsh or unwarranted, as the primary issue of bail had been resolved by the grant of statutory bail. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition as infructuous.
Facts
The petitioner, Arindam Chaudhuri, challenged an order dated 16.10.2020 passed by the learned ASJ-02, New Delhi, concerning bail conditions. This order modified a previous order dated 12.10.2020 by the learned ACMM, New Delhi. The ACMM had directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed amount, which was Rs. 22,41,07,389/-, as a prerequisite for bail. The ASJ modified this to 15% of the disputed amount. The petitioner argued that even the 15% deposit was harsh and unwarranted. Subsequently, it was submitted by the petitioner and not refuted by the respondent that the petitioner had been granted statutory bail under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Cr.PC, 1973, subject to conditions imposed by the learned CMM, New Delhi, on 21.10.2020. Therefore, the present petition was rendered infructuous.
Key Issues
1. Whether the condition imposed by the learned ASJ-02, New Delhi, to deposit 15% of the disputed amount (Rs. 22,41,07,389/-) as a prerequisite for bail was harsh, onerous, and unwarranted in law, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the present petition has become infructuous due to the subsequent grant of statutory bail to the petitioner under Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the Cr.PC, 1973? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the direction to deposit 15% of the disputed amount was equally harsh, onerous, and unwarranted in law. They further contended that the present petition had become infructuous as they had been granted statutory bail. Respondent's Contentions: The respondent did not refute the petitioner's submissions regarding the harshness of the bail condition or the petition becoming infructuous.
Sections Cited
Section 167(2)(a)(ii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2020 (through video conferencing)
The reply of the respondent is on the record.
Vide the present petition, the petitioner had assailed the impugned order dated 16.10.2020 of the learned ASJ-02, New Delhi qua condition imposed to the grant of bail after modification of the order dated 12.10.2020 by the learned ACMM, New Delhi whereby though the conditions imposed by the learned trial Court on the petitioner to deposit 25% of the amount involved in the present case i.e. Rs.22,41,07,389/- with the department as a prerequisite for his release on bail were modified to an amount of 15% of the amount involved from 25% of the amount involved as imposed by the learned ACMM, New Delhi.
It was submitted on behalf of the
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.