Vinod Mansukhlal Vadhaiya And Anr. vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

Held

The Court held that the transit anticipatory bail was granted for a temporary period to enable the applicants to approach the appropriate court. The Court observed that the period for which the bail was granted had ended, and the applications for extension were filed after the expiry of this period. The Court found no reason to extend the relief previously granted. Consequently, all interim applications seeking an extension of transit anticipatory bail were rejected. The Court did not explicitly leave any issues undecided, but the primary finding was that the expired transit bail could not be extended under the given circumstances.

Facts

The applicants, Vinod Mansukhlal Vadhaiya and others, Ritesh Ramniklal Parmar and others, Pratik Bharatbhai Patel and others, and Pulkit Purnachandra Mehta and others, filed interim applications seeking an extension of transit anticipatory bail. This bail was initially granted by the Bombay High Court on April 15, 2021. The applicants were apprehending arrest pursuant to summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1995, and Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicants argued that due to the pandemic and lockdown, they could not approach the concerned courts for appropriate relief and requested a four-week extension. One applicant also submitted they had tested positive for Covid-19. The respondents, the State of Maharashtra and another (presumably the GST authorities), opposed the extension, arguing that sufficient time had been granted and the transit bail had expired, making the applications not maintainable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should extend the transit anticipatory bail granted to the applicants under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1995, and Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, considering the ongoing pandemic situation and the expiry of the initial bail period. Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: Argued that due to the pandemic and lockdown, they were unable to approach the appropriate court for relief and therefore sought an extension of the transit anticipatory bail by four weeks. One applicant also cited a personal Covid-19 diagnosis. Revenue/State: Vehemently opposed the extension, submitting that sufficient time had already been granted to the applicants and that the period of transit bail had expired, rendering the applications not maintainable.