Mahendra Mangal S/O Shri Ramesh Chand vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Mahendra Mangal, filed a second bail application before the Rajasthan High Court. He is accused under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, and has been in judicial custody since February 22, 2021. His first bail application was dismissed by the High Court on September 7, 2021. The charge-sheet has since been filed, and the trial is yet to commence. The petitioner argued that the offence is compoundable, the maximum punishment is five years, and the trial may take a long time, warranting his release on bail. The respondent (Union of India) opposed the application, stating that the first bail application was dismissed on merits and no new circumstances have arisen. They also argued that documents related to the petitioner's father's illness were from January 2021 and thus not relevant to the first bail application decided in September 2021.

Held

The Court held that the second bail application could not be entertained as there was no change in circumstances since the dismissal of the first bail application on merits. The reasoning was that the first bail application had already been decided on its merits, and the petitioner had failed to present any new grounds or developments that would necessitate a reconsideration of his bail plea. The Court found no new circumstances that justified entertaining the second application, effectively upholding the previous decision. Therefore, the Court dismissed the second bail application. No specific issue regarding the interpretation of Section 132 CGST Act or the compoundability of the offence was decided, as the dismissal was based on procedural grounds related to bail applications.

Key Issues

1. Whether a second bail application can be entertained when the first bail application was dismissed on merits and no new circumstances have arisen, as per Section 439 Cr.P.C. and relevant precedents. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that he has been falsely implicated, is in custody for approximately one year, and the trial has not yet commenced. He highlighted that the offence under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, is compoundable and carries a maximum punishment of five years, suggesting that his continued detention is not justified given the potential delay in trial conclusion. He relied on several judgments, including Dananjay Singh Vs. Union of India and Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, to support his plea for bail. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner's first bail application was dismissed on merits, and therefore, no new circumstances warrant entertaining a second bail application. They specifically pointed out that the documents submitted regarding the petitioner's father's illness were from January 2021, predating the dismissal of the first bail application in September 2021, rendering them irrelevant. They relied on judgments such as Ashok Kumar Sihotiya Vs. Union of India and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kajad.