Debashish Pal vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The High Court held that criminal proceedings are not intended for the realization of disputed dues. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Shyam Singh v. State, through C.B.I., (2006) 9 SCC 169, which stated that while a court can grant or refuse bail, directing repayment of an amount at the stage of granting bail is both onerous and unwarranted. Consequently, the Court set aside the part of the order dated 11.12.2020 that imposed the condition of depositing a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.4.20 Crores. The rest of the order was kept intact. The petition was disposed of with this observation and direction.
Facts
The petitioner, Debashish Pal, filed a petition before the High Court of Jharkhand challenging an order dated 11.12.2020 passed by the Special Judge, Economic Offence, Ranchi. The order was in connection with Economic Offence (Comp.) No.01/2020. The petitioner was released on a P.R. bond with an undertaking, ratified by a relative, to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.4.20 Crores in favour of the concerned department within four days. The petitioner sought to quash this specific condition of furnishing the bank guarantee, arguing it was not in accordance with law. The Opposite Parties, Union of India and the State of Jharkhand, through their counsel, submitted that the petitioner was released on bail subject to this condition and was required to cooperate in the trial.
Key Issues
1. Whether the condition imposed by the Special Judge, Economic Offence, Ranchi, to deposit a bank guarantee of Rs.4.20 Crores as a pre-condition for release on P.R. bond is legally sustainable? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the condition requiring a bank guarantee of Rs.4.20 Crores was not in accordance with law. He contended that the matter was still under trial, and the final outcome would clarify the situation. Therefore, imposing such a condition at the bail stage was unwarranted. Revenue/State's Contention: The Opposite Parties submitted that the learned court had already released the petitioner on P.R. bond subject to this condition. They further stated that the petitioner was required to cooperate in the trial.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
---- Cr.M.P. No. 4116 of 2022
---- 1.Debashish Pal, about 45 years, s/o Khagendranath Pal, Qr. No.B-1441, Sector -2, site -4, P.O. and P.S. Jaganathpur, Dhurwa, District Ranchi
….. Petitioner -- Versus --
Union of India 2.The State of Jharkhand 3.Superintendent, Preventive Branch, O/o Pr.Commissioner, CGST & Cx, Central Revenue Building, 5A, Main Road, Ranchi, PO-GPO, District Ranchi- 834001. …... Opposite Parties
---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Mritunjay Chaudhary, Advocate
For the UOI :- Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C.to A.S.G.I.
For the C.G.S.T. :- Ms. Surabhi, Advocate
----
2/15.12.2022 This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 11.12.2020 in connection with Economic Offence (Comp.) No.01/2020 to the extent of expunging the con
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 Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.