State Of Karnataka vs. Sri Imthiyaz

Brief facts of the case are that, Crime No.5 of 2024 was registered against the respondent alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act (for short 'the KGST Act'). During investigation, the respondent was apprehended on 22.01.2024. It is stated that the learned Magistrate had rejected the prayer of the respondent for grant of bail. The respondent approached the Sessions Court, which has allowed the application for bail vide order dated 29.02.2024, subject to conditions. The said order is being challenged by the petitioner herein. The petitioner has relied on additional grounds along with additional documents in support of its contention.

Heard Sri Vijaykumar Majjage, learned State Public Prosecutor - II along with Smt K P Yashoda, learned High Court NC: 2024:KHC:31009 Government Pleader for the petitioner - State and Sri Kiran S Javali, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri Sreehari, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on record.

Learned State Public Prosecutor - II for the petitioner - State submits that the learned Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration the materials on record in light of the facts and circumstances narrated and that the order granting bail is perverse. He further submits that even though specific conditions are imposed while granting bail to the respondent, he has not complied with the said condition.

Learned State Public Prosecutor - II further submits that the respondent has not furnished all necessary information and documents called for by the Investigating Officer and that the respondent has not produced the mobile hand set which was with him. He further submits that after enlarging the respondent on bail, he is involved in concoction of several documents and necessary information are not being furnished by him to the Investigating Officer, thereby, the respondent is violating the conditions imposed by the Trial Court by not co- operating in the investigation. Hence, he prays for allowing the NC: 2024:KHC:31009 petition by canceling the bail granted in favour of the respondent.

Per contra, learned senior advocate for the respondent submitted that as per the provisions of the KGST Act, the required particulars along with the supporting documents are to be uploaded in the web portal and accordingly, the respondent has uploaded the particulars and documents which are available online.

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: NC: 2024:KHC:31009 "Whether the State has made out any grounds for cancellation of bail granted in favour of the respondent?"

On perusal of the grounds made out in the petition as well as the additional grounds pleaded by the petitioner, its contention is of two fold. Firstly, it is contended that the required documents are not being produced by the respondent and there is concoction of documents and secondly, there is violation of the conditions imposed on the respondent while passing the impugned order granting bail. It is not in dispute that the respondent is required to upload the information along with supporting documents in the web portal and the same is available online. Even if any additional documents are required by the petitioner, he may call upon the respondent to produce the same. If the respondent fails to produce cogent materials and supporting documents, the Investigating Officer can proceed with the assumption that the respondent is not in NC: 2024:KHC:31009 possession of any such materials or documents. But the Investigating Officer cannot compel the respondent to produce a specific document during investigation. It is not the commission of any ordinary criminal offence, but it is an economic offence. The investigation is at the initial stage. After investigation and on determination of tax, the respondent could be made liable to make payment by passing an assessment order.

Admittedly, the respondent was apprehended, subjected to interrogation, later he was enlarged on bail subject to conditions. Initially, while filing the petition, it is not the contention of the petitioner that the respondent has violated any of the conditions imposed on him, but later additional grounds were pleaded to contend that there is violation of conditions. Simply because the respondent has not produced the documents that are called for by the Investigating Officer, it will not amount to violation of any of the conditions imposed while granting bail. If the petitioner is of the opinion that certain documents are withheld by the respondent deliberately or it is of the opinion that concocted documents are relied on by the respondent, it can still proceed further by making such NC: 2024:KHC:31009 grounds against the respondent to speed up the investigation and pass the assessment order.

Learned State Public Prosecutor - II places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Centrum Hon'ble Apex Court found that releasing the accused on bail was not justifiable. The same cannot be made applicable to all cases and the bail granted on merits cannot sought to be cancelled.

It is well settled proposition of law that denying bail to the accused is entirely different from cancellation of bail already granted by the Court as it amounts to withdrawing the liberty granted in favour of the accused which requires strong

On going through the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, it can be made out that the Court has taken into consideration the facts of the case and has assigned valid reasons for enlarging the respondent on bail. I do not find any such compelling reason for cancellation of bail granted in favour of the respondent. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER