Nitin Bansal vs. State Of U.P.
Held
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. The reasoning is based on the fact that an identically placed co-accused has already been granted bail by the Court. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found it to be a fit case for granting bail. The Court directed the release of the applicant, Nitin Bansal, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Specific conditions were imposed, including not tampering with evidence, cooperating with the trial, not indulging in criminal activity, and providing sureties after normal court functioning is restored. The Court also noted that if the applicant was on short-term bail, his bail would be effective after that period ends.
Facts
The applicant, Nitin Bansal, is seeking bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12778 of 2020. He has been in jail since June 20, 2019, in connection with case crime No. 1208 of 2018, under sections 420, 466, 468, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 132 of the CGST Act, registered at Police Station Surajpur, District Gautambudha Nagar. The applicant's prayer for release is based on parity, as a co-accused, Santendra Kumar, has already been enlarged on bail by the Court on April 17, 2020, in a related bail application. The Court heard the arguments through video conferencing due to prevailing guidelines.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity with a co-accused, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? The applicant argued for release on bail based on parity, citing the order granting bail to a co-accused, Santendra Kumar. The applicant contended that he is identically placed to the co-accused who has already been released. The applicant also highlighted that he has been in jail since June 20, 2019. The State, represented by the Government Advocate, did not present any specific arguments against the bail application in the provided text, beyond its role as the opposite party.
Sections Cited
Section 132 CGST
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12778 of 2020 Applicant :- Nitin Bansal Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Nigam,Prashant Kumar Singh,Vijay Bahadur Singh (Senior Advocate)
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
In view of the guidelines laid down by this Court, the urgent bail applications have been directed to be heard through Video Conferencing.
Heard Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Santosh Kumar Nigam and shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant through Video Conferencing.
The co-accused, Santendra Kumar, has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 17.04.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 50393 of 2019 The prayer for release of the applicant on bail on the ground of parity has been made. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.6.2019. Considering the fact that the identically placed co- accused has already been released on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Nitin Bansal, involved in
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.