Snehal Dolatrai Naik vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

Held

The Court held that the applicant was entitled to regular bail. The reasoning was based on the completion of the investigation against the applicant and the fact that her further custody was not required. Considering the maximum punishment provided under Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, the Court found that a case for bail was made out. The operative directions included releasing the applicant on bail upon execution of a P.R. bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. The applicant was directed to cooperate with the adjudication process, not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, and furnish her residential particulars to the Investigating Officer within seven days.

Facts

The applicant, Ms. Snehal Dolatrai Naik, sought regular bail in connection with an offense under Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. The applicant was arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation. The investigation against the applicant was stated to be over, and further custody was deemed not required. Two co-accused had already been released on bail due to the default in filing the charge sheet under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The applicant was presently on interim bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the maximum punishment prescribed and the stage of investigation? The applicant argued that the investigation was complete, and her further custody was unnecessary. She contended that given the maximum punishment for the offense, a case for bail was made out. The applicant also highlighted that co-accused had been released on bail due to the delay in filing the charge sheet. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, and respondent no. 2, represented by their counsel, did not record any specific arguments against the bail application in the judgment.