Gurbaksh Singh vs. Superintendent Of CGST, Commissionerate, Ludhiana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Gurbaksh Singh, is seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The bail is sought in a complaint case filed by the Superintendent of CGST, Ludhiana, against M/s Japji Knitwears Pvt Ltd and nine others. The case involves alleged offenses under Section 132(1)(b, c & 1) of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 132(1)(b), (c) & (1) of the Punjab State Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence for these offenses is five years. The petitioner has undergone custody for 1 year, 2 months, and 6 days. All other co-accused, including the principal accused Baljinder Singh, have already been granted bail, though it is noted by the respondent that these were default bail.
Held
The Court allowed the petition for regular bail. The primary reasoning for this decision was based on the substantial period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, which was 1 year, 2 months, and 6 days. Additionally, the Court took into account the fact that all other co-accused, including the principal accused, had already been granted bail. While the respondent noted that the bail granted to co-accused was default bail, this did not deter the Court from granting regular bail to the petitioner. The Court found sufficient grounds to admit the petitioner to bail, considering the length of detention and the parity with other similarly placed individuals. The operative direction was to admit the petitioner to bail on furnishing bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering his period of custody and the fact that co-accused have been granted bail, in light of Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Punjab State Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he has undergone a substantial period of custody (1 year, 2 months, and 6 days). He further contended that all other co-accused, including the principal accused, have already been granted bail, implying parity in treatment. The petitioner relied on the principle of granting bail when the custody period is significant and co-accused are on bail. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, Superintendent of CGST, Ludhiana, pointed out that the bail granted to the co-accused was default bail. However, no specific argument was recorded against the grant of regular bail to the petitioner based on the merits of the case or the severity of the alleged offenses.
Sections Cited
Section 132, Section 20
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 249 CRM-M-19842 of 2022 Date of Decision:01.03.2023 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ashish Soi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate, Ms. Shivani Sahni & Mr. Tej Bahadur, Advocates for respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is seeking regular bail by way of this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C in a complaint case titled as 'Superintendent, Preventive, CGST, Ludhiana vs M/s Japji Knitwears Pvt Ltd & 9 Ors' bearing No.COMA-6114-2022 under Section 132(1)(b, c & 1) punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of CGST Act, 2017 and under clauses (b), (c) & (1) of sub-Section (1) of Section 132 of Punjab State Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 is pending in the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. Custody certificate has been placed on record revealing that petitioner had already undergone the custody period of 1 year 2 months and 6 days. The maximum sentence provided for the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner is 5 years. It is also stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that all other co-accused namely Baljinder Singh, Vishal NEETIKA TUTEJA 2023.03.01 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.
CRM-M-19842 of 2022 -2- Singh, Sagar, Gurtej Singh, Mohan Lal Verma, Mukesh Verma and Sukhvir Kumar had already been allowed bail, though it is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that co-accused had been allowed default bail. Having regard to the custody period of the petitioner and the fact that all other co-accused have already been granted bail including principal accused Baljinder, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds/sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. March 01, 2023 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) Neetika Tuteja JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2023.03.01 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.