Abhishek Singh S/O. Dhirendra Sing vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the applicants were entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. The Court considered the facts of the case, the nature of the allegations, the gravity of the offences, and the role attributed to the accused, without discussing the evidence in detail. The Court's decision was based on several factors: the applicants had been in jail since May 24, 2019; the investigation was almost concluded, with the 60-day period having expired on July 23, 2019; the amount in question had been deposited with the department; the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences was five years; and an interim order from the High Court in a related matter had directed no coercive action against the company's CMD. The Court also took into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. The application was allowed, and the applicants were ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety of the like amount, along with several conditions including not taking undue advantage of liberty, not acting in a manner injurious to the prosecution, surrendering passports, not leaving India without permission, marking presence at the police station, and not changing residence without court permission. The trial court was directed not to be influenced by the prima facie observations made in the order.

Facts

The applicants, Abhishek Singh and others, filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. The application was in connection with FIR F.No.IV/16/PREV/Gr.VI/37/2018-19, registered with the Superintendent, (preventive) CGST, Vadodara II, for alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of the Central Excise And Goods Tax Act. The applicants had been in jail since May 24, 2019. The prosecution opposed the grant of bail due to the nature and gravity of the offence. The applicants' counsel contended that the investigation was almost concluded, the amount in question had been deposited, and the maximum punishment was five years. An interim order from the High Court in a related matter directing no coercive action against the company's CMD was also placed on record.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature and gravity of the alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of the Central Excise And Goods Tax Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants argued that they should be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions, considering the nature of the offence. They further contended that they had been in jail since May 24, 2019, the investigation was nearly concluded, and the period of 60 days for investigation had passed. Crucially, they submitted that the amount in question had already been deposited with the department. They also highlighted that the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences was five years and referred to an interim order dated July 17, 2019, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 12019 of 2019, which directed no coercive action against the company's CMD. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent-State opposed the grant of regular bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offence.