Sumit Dutta S/O Shri Vinod Dutta Partner Msr Veto Merchandise Jaipur vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the prayer for interim bail. It reasoned that considering the contentions put forth by the petitioner's counsel and the medical condition of the petitioner's father, who required treatment, it was deemed proper to grant interim bail. The petitioner was directed to be released on interim bail for a period of two months upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each. The petitioner was also directed to surrender before the concerned jail authorities on or before 18.09.2021. A crucial stipulation was made that if the angiography of the petitioner's father was not performed during the intervening period, the petitioner would not be entitled to any further extension of interim bail. The main bail application, however, was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Sumit Dutta, a partner in M/s Veto Merchandise, filed a second bail application before the Rajasthan High Court. The application was in relation to a complaint registered by the CGST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur, for alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b) & (c) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Sections 132(1)(i) and Sub-Section (5) of the Act. The petitioner sought interim bail on medical grounds, specifically citing the critical health condition of his 67-year-old father, who required angiography. The respondent, Union of India, opposed the interim bail application, noting that the angiography had been postponed. A hospital letter indicated the postponement was due to the father's suffering from Pleural Extension with T.B. Chest and altered sensorium with depression.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim bail on medical grounds, considering the health condition of his father and the need for his treatment? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and principles of granting bail). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued for interim bail based on his father's severe medical condition, requiring angiography, and his advanced age. He emphasized the necessity of his presence for his father's treatment. Respondent's Contention: The Union of India opposed the interim bail application. They pointed out that the angiography had been postponed and submitted a hospital letter to that effect. They did not present further arguments on the merits of the bail application itself, focusing on the postponement of the medical procedure.