Pradeep Kumar Bansal S/O Nagarmal Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner. The reasoning for this decision was based on several factors presented by the petitioner's counsel. These included the length of custody (since July 16, 2020), the maximum punishment awardable under the Act of 2017 being five years, the compoundable nature of the offences, the filing of the complaint after the completion of the investigation, and the absence of criminal antecedents. The Court explicitly stated that it was making no opinion on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each, subject to compliance with Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

Facts

The petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Bansal, is seeking bail in connection with an FIR registered for offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He has been in custody since July 16, 2020. The complaint was filed on September 16, 2020, after the completion of the investigation. The petitioner's counsel argued that mandatory provisions for arrest were violated and that no notices for adjudication of tax liability under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act had been served. Furthermore, no prosecution sanction had been accorded, the maximum punishment is five years, and the offences are compoundable. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The respondent contended that the alleged tax evasion is Rs. 42.82 crores and the investigation is ongoing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the alleged violation of arrest procedures, the stage of proceedings, and the nature of the offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that there was a violation of mandatory provisions during the arrest and its continuation. They highlighted that the complaint was filed after investigation, no adjudication notices under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act were served, and no prosecution sanction was granted. They also emphasized that the maximum punishment is five years, the offences are compoundable, and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the Goods and Services Tax Department, opposed the bail application, citing the gravity of the allegation of tax evasion amounting to Rs. 42.82 crores and stating that the investigation is still continuing.