Subhash Chander vs. State Of Punjab And Another

Held

The Court held that the petition for bail merits acceptance. The reasoning was based on two primary factors: the period of custody undergone by the petitioner (about 10 months) and the fact that the maximum sentence provided for the offence is 5 years. Crucially, the Court also considered the significant fact that the vires of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, are under challenge before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court found that in light of these circumstances, detaining the petitioner further would not serve any useful purpose. The interim directions previously granted for the release of the petitioner on bail were made absolute on the same terms and conditions. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Subhash Chander, sought regular bail in a case registered under Section 69/132(1)(b)(c) of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The allegations are that the petitioner availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to approximately ₹10.81 crores based on invoices without actual sale of goods. The petitioner had been in custody for about 10 months. A significant fact is that the vires of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, itself has been challenged in a separate writ petition (CWP No.8004-2020) before the same High Court, and notice of motion has been issued. The State counsel did not dispute this challenge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in light of the period of custody undergone and the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence, considering the ongoing trial is stalled? 2. Whether the challenge to the vires of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, has a bearing on the grant of bail? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he has undergone custody for approximately 10 months, and the maximum sentence for the offence is 5 years. He contended that no useful purpose would be served by further detention as the trial is not likely to conclude soon, being virtually at a standstill. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that the vires of the Act itself are under challenge in a separate writ petition, which has been admitted by the Division Bench. Revenue's Arguments: The State counsel argued that a huge scam involving a colossal amount of over ₹10 crores has been unearthed, and therefore, no case for granting bail is made out.