Mohammad Ayub S/O Phool Mohammad vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammad Ayub, filed a second bail application before the Rajasthan High Court. He was arrested for allegedly illegally importing 6,412 grams of gold. The investigation has been completed, and a charge-sheet has been filed. The petitioner's first bail application was previously dismissed. The petitioner argued that the maximum punishment under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017, does not exceed 5 years, and he has no prior antecedents. He also highlighted that the trial would take time. The respondents, Union of India and Inspector Nanak Gupta, did not controvert the petitioner's contentions.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. It reasoned that the petitioner had no previous criminal antecedents for similar offenses and had already suffered incarceration for over 3 months. Taking into account the period of punishment provided under the statute and relying on the Apex Court's order in Ratnambar Kaushik (Supra), where bail was granted after more than four months of incarceration, the Court found it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each. The Court also added a condition that if the petitioner repeats the same nature of offense, it would be open for the respondent to move an application for cancellation of bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail considering the stage of investigation, the alleged offense, and the period of incarceration, in light of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017? The petitioner argued that the maximum punishment under Section 132(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, is 5 years, and he has already undergone incarceration for over 3 months. He contended that the trial would take considerable time and cited the Supreme Court's decision in Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India, which granted bail after the petitioner had undergone more than four months of incarceration, considering the nature of evidence (documentary and electronic) and the absence of apprehension of tampering. The petitioner also emphasized his lack of previous antecedents for similar offenses. The respondents, Union of India and Inspector Nanak Gupta, did not present any counter-arguments to the petitioner's submissions.