Jiwan vs. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)

Held

The Court held that the conditions imposed for granting default bail were harsh. The petitioner had offered a house owned by his wife as security. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) indicated no objection to this offer, subject to verification of ownership in the wife's name as per revenue records. The Court noted that no quantification of the alleged tax evasion had been done by passing an order at that stage. In light of the petitioner's offer and the respondent's lack of objection, the Court allowed the revision petition. The impugned order was modified to the extent that the petitioner would be released on bail upon furnishing the surety of the house as referred to by the petitioner. The Court did not explicitly mention any issues left undecided, but the primary focus was on modifying the bail conditions.

Facts

The petitioner, Jiwan, is alleged to have created fake firms, registered them with GST authorities, and facilitated bogus input tax credit by issuing bills. As the prosecution failed to file a challan within the stipulated period, the petitioner sought default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, granted default bail but imposed stringent conditions: bail bonds of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- with two sureties and an FDR of Rs. 60,00,000/-. A subsequent revision modified these conditions to bail bonds of Rs. 40,00,000/- each with two sureties and a bank guarantee/FDR of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking modification of these bail conditions, offering a house owned by his wife as security.

Key Issues

1. Whether the conditions imposed for the grant of default bail are excessively harsh and require modification, considering the petitioner's financial capacity and the nature of the alleged offense under the GST regime? The petitioner argued that the bail conditions imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge and subsequently modified by the revisional court were harsh and difficult to comply with. He offered a house owned by his wife, free from encumbrances, located in Cemented Colony, Mandi Gobindgarh Road, Ward No. 8, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, as security. The respondent, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), stated that they had no objection to the petitioner's wife furnishing the house as surety, provided it was established that the house was in her name as per revenue records. The respondent did not raise any specific legal arguments against the modification of bail conditions but relied on their instructions regarding the acceptance of the property as surety.