Mohd. Shamshad And Anr vs. State Of U.P. And Anr

Held

The Court held that the applicants, Mohd. Shamshad and Sajjad, are to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 30 of 2020 under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The reasoning was based on the principle of parity with their co-accused, Pradeep Kumar, who had already been released on bail by the High Court on furnishing a personal bond. The Court found that the learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the fact that the co-accused had been released on bail on a personal bond. Therefore, the applicants were directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond only, to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where they were lodged. The Court also directed that the bail order and this order be considered authentic if found on the High Court's website. The applicants were cautioned against misusing their liberty and directed to cooperate with the investigation and trial. The Office of the Government Advocate was instructed to inform the concerned S.P./S.S.P. for necessary action by the jail authority. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The applicants, Mohd. Shamshad and Sajjad, filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the Duty Magistrate, Meerut, to release them on personal bond. They were implicated in Case Crime No. 30 of 2020 under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The applicants contended that despite a previous order from the High Court dated 06.04.2020 in a Public Interest Litigation, the Magistrate had directed verification of sureties. They further pointed out that a co-accused, Pradeep Kumar, in a similar situation, was released on bail by the same High Court on 04.06.2020 upon furnishing a personal bond. The learned A.G.A. for the State did not dispute the release of the co-accused.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to be released on personal bond, similar to their co-accused, in light of the High Court's previous orders and the principle of parity? 2. Whether the Magistrate's order to verify sureties, instead of releasing the applicants on personal bond as directed by the High Court, is in compliance with the Court's earlier directions? The applicants argued that the Magistrate's order was contrary to the High Court's directions and that they should be released on personal bond, citing the precedent set by the release of their co-accused, Pradeep Kumar, on similar terms. The applicants relied on the High Court's order dated 04.06.2020 in Application U/S 482 No. 10697 of 2020. The State, through the learned A.G.A., did not dispute the facts presented by the applicants regarding the co-accused's release.