Anil Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case. The primary reasoning for denial was the existence of orders from co-ordinate benches of the same High Court that had denied bail in identical matters. Specifically, the Court referred to three cases (Anil Chaukdiwal, Bhagwan Sain, and Deepak Chaukdiwal) where co-ordinate benches had directed the suo moto cancellation of bail for accused persons. This precedent of denial of bail in similar circumstances by other benches of the High Court weighed heavily on the decision. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that in some previously cited rejection orders, the investigation was pending, but it did not find this distinction sufficient to grant bail, given the overall trend of denial in similar cases. The Court's ratio decidendi is that when multiple co-ordinate benches have consistently denied bail in factually similar cases concerning offences under the CGST Act, a subsequent bench should follow that precedent, especially when the denial is based on the gravity of the offences and the potential for continued detention. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Anil Kumar, is seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with C.R. No.V(15)273/AE/UDR/2020-21, registered for offences under Sections 132 (1) (a), (f), (h), (j) and (k) & 132 (1) (l) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since July 25, 2021, and the charge-sheet was filed on the date of the hearing. The petitioner's counsel argued that the offences are triable by a Magistrate and cited a co-ordinate bench's order granting bail in an identical matter. The respondent, Union of India through the Central Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate, Udaipur, opposed the bail application, presenting orders from co-ordinate benches denying bail in similar cases where investigations were pending and charge-sheets had not been filed. The petitioner's counsel countered that in the cited rejection orders, investigations were ongoing, unlike the present case where the charge-sheet has been filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the stage of investigation and filing of charge-sheet, considering the alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(a), (f), (h), (j), (k), and (l) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the offences are triable by a Magistrate. They also contended that the charge-sheet has been filed, and in an identical matter, a co-ordinate bench of this Court granted bail. They further submitted that in cases where bail was previously denied by co-ordinate benches, the investigation was still pending, which is not the situation in the present case. Respondent's Contention: The respondent opposed the bail application, citing several orders from co-ordinate benches of this Court that denied bail in identical matters. They highlighted that in some of these cases, the investigation was pending at the time of rejection, but they also presented other orders where bail was denied even when charge-sheets were filed, implying a consistent stance against granting bail in similar circumstances.