Dev Adania @ Dev Madan Adania vs. Union Of INDIA Through Joint Commissioner

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The reasoning was based on several factors: the offence being triable by a Magistrate, the absence of any alleged criminal antecedents against the applicant, and the compoundable nature of the offence. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where the offence is triable by a Magistrate, compoundable, and the accused has no prior criminal record, bail should be considered favorably, even if there are allegations of tax evasion, without prejudice to the final outcome of the case. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, with the condition to appear on all hearing dates.

Facts

The petitioner, Dev Adania, proprietor of M/s Gajmukhi Bullion, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. He is in custody in connection with complaint No. CGST/Div.D/AE/Gajmukhi/95/2020, registered at the Central Goods & Service Tax Department, Pali, for offences under Sections 132 and 69 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contends he was falsely implicated, that provisions of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. were not followed, and that his implication is based on co-accused statements. He also argues the offence is triable by a Magistrate and compoundable, with no apparent reason for his continued detention. The respondent opposed the bail, citing huge tax evasion and the potential for a wrong signal if bail is granted.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with offences under Sections 132 and 69 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated, that Section 41A of Cr.P.C. was not complied with, and that his implication is solely based on the statements of co-accused. Further, he contended that the offences are triable by a Magistrate and are compoundable, thus there is no justification for his continued incarceration. Reliance was placed on Dhanraj Singhal vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 6278/2020). Respondent's arguments: The respondent opposed the bail application, submitting that there has been huge tax evasion and that granting bail to the petitioner would send a wrong signal.