Dilipbhai Mohanbhai Sejpal vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to regular bail. The reasoning was based on several factors: the applicant's incarceration since April 15, 2019; his age of approximately 62 years; the conclusion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet; the maximum punishment for the alleged offence being five years; and the applicant's role attributed to him and the material placed on record. The Court also considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to several conditions including not misusing liberty, not acting prejudicially to prosecution interests, surrendering his passport, not leaving India without permission, marking presence at the police station monthly for six months, and not changing his residence without prior permission.

Facts

This is a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by Dilipbhai Mohanbhai Sejpal. The applicant sought regular bail in connection with a complaint registered as CGST File No. 1 of 2019. The complaint pertains to alleged offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(A), (B), (C), and (D) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The complaint was filed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Unit 99, Jamnagar. The applicant has been in jail since April 15, 2019, is aged about 62 years, and the investigation has concluded with a charge-sheet filed. The maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence is five years.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the facts presented. The petitioner argued that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail with suitable conditions. The respondent-State, through the learned APP, opposed the grant of regular bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offence. Both parties, however, did not press for a further reasoned order, indicating a mutual understanding or agreement to expedite the bail process based on the presented facts and arguments.