Varinder Singh vs. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence

Held

The Court held that the petitioner, having been granted bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. due to the investigating agency's failure to file a charge-sheet within the stipulated period, cannot be kept in jail indefinitely due to stringent bail conditions. The Court noted that the petitioner had already undergone over 11 months of custody, and the maximum sentence for the alleged offense is five years. It found the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee/FDR to be unsustainable, as such a condition can normally be imposed in lieu of executing a bond, not in addition to it. The Court reasoned that the undertaking of sureties is distinct and can be enforced independently. While acknowledging the gravity of economic offenses, the Court found that the modified conditions were still too onerous and frustrated the bail relief. The Court disagreed with the respondent's reliance on previous judgments, stating they were not binding precedents in this case, especially considering the hardship faced by the accused and the non-filing of the charge-sheet. Consequently, the Court modified the bail conditions further.

Facts

The petitioner, Varinder Singh, was arrested on December 24, 2020, for an alleged offense under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, involving a wrongful loss of `15.91 crores to the Directorate General of GST Intelligence. The offense is punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, with a maximum imprisonment of 5 years. As no charge-sheet was filed within the stipulated 60 days, the petitioner was granted regular bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, on February 24, 2021. However, the bail conditions were stringent, requiring a bond of `1.10 crores, two sureties of like amount, and a bank guarantee/FDR of `60 lakhs. The petitioner challenged these conditions before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, who, by order dated July 15, 2021, reduced the bond and surety amounts to `30 lakhs each and the bank guarantee to `20 lakhs. Aggrieved by these modified but still stringent conditions, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the bail conditions imposed by the revisional court, requiring a bond of `30 lakhs, two sureties of `30 lakhs each, and a bank guarantee of `20 lakhs, are excessively stringent and beyond the petitioner's financial capacity, thereby frustrating the relief of bail granted under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that despite the reduction by the revisional court, the modified conditions remain unjust and excessively high, causing a miscarriage of justice. He contended that once a bail bond and sureties are furnished, imposing a separate bank guarantee is unnecessary. He relied on Supreme Court judgments in *Saravanan vs. State* and *Bikramjit Singh vs. The State of Punjab*, and High Court decisions in *Amandeep Singh Bhui vs. Inspector (Preventive) Central Goods and Service Tax* and *Neeraj Ram Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Gujarat*. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the revisional court's order is justified given the nature and gravity of the economic offense involving `15.91 crores. They submitted that the modified conditions are not excessive and that the bank guarantee is necessary to safeguard the complainant's interest, especially since recovery is to be effected. They cited High Court judgments in *Sahil Jain vs. Joint Commissioner, CGST Ludhiana* and *Pawan Kumar vs. State of Punjab & Another*.