Sunkavalli Uday Bhaskara Swami vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The High Court disposed of the criminal petition based on the request made by the petitioners' counsel. The Court directed the petitioners to approach the trial court and file a bail application seeking bail. The prosecution was granted liberty to oppose this application before the lower court on grounds that were presented before the High Court, which included arguments regarding the maintainability of a default bail application. The trial court was directed to consider these arguments and dispose of the bail application according to law. The core issue of entitlement to default bail was not decided by the High Court but was remitted to the trial court for consideration.

Facts

The petitioners, identified as A-2 and A-3, are involved in a case registered under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The investigation in this matter, bearing F.No.IV/06/INV/242/2021-AE, was ongoing. The petitioners had been in custody for over sixty days. Their counsel requested the High Court to dispose of the bail application, granting them liberty to approach the trial court for default bail, given the incomplete investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given that the investigation has not been completed even after they have been in jail for more than sixty days, as per the arguments presented by the petitioners' counsel. 2. The revenue, represented by the learned Standing Counsel for CBIC, did not explicitly argue any points against the maintainability of the default bail application before the High Court. However, the prosecution was granted liberty to oppose the default bail application before the lower court on grounds that were urged before the High Court, implying potential arguments regarding the maintainability of such an application.