Ashok Kumar Sihotiya S/O Sh. Anandilal Sihotiya vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that no ground is made out for entertaining the second bail application. The reasoning provided is that there has been no change in circumstances that would necessitate entertaining a second bail application. Consequently, the Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application was dismissed. The Court did not explicitly discuss the specific provisions of the CGST Act under which the offence was registered beyond identifying them in the facts, nor did it delve into the merits of the case itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the second bail application. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Sihotiya, is an accused in Case No. IV (06) 26/AE/JPR/2019, registered for offences under Sections 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The case was initiated by the Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Jaipur. The petitioner is currently in judicial custody at Central Jail, Jaipur. He has filed a second bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur.

Key Issues

1. Whether there has been a change in circumstances since the dismissal of the first bail application that warrants entertaining a second bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner has filed a second bail application, implying a belief that circumstances have changed or that the court should reconsider the matter. However, the judgment does not explicitly record any arguments made by the petitioner regarding a change in circumstances. Respondent's Argument: The Union of India, through the Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Jaipur, is the respondent. The judgment does not explicitly record any arguments made by the respondent.