Afjal Sadikali Savjani vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Afjal Sadikali Savjani, filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. The application pertains to a case registered with the Office of the Chief Commissioner of State Tax, Enforcement, Co-ordination Branch, Ahmedabad, for offences under Section 132(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The complaint was filed on September 4, 2021, for alleged offences occurring between 2017 and 2021. The applicant has been in jail since July 9, 2021. The investigation is concluded with the filing of the complaint. The applicant's counsel argued that no direct evidence involving the applicant had come on record during the complaint proceedings, and the department had not initiated departmental adjudication for the input tax credit involved. The applicant offered to deposit Rs. 1 crore within six months.

Held

The Court allowed the application for regular bail. The Court considered that the applicant had been in jail since July 9, 2021, and the investigation was concluded with the filing of the complaint. It was noted that no direct evidence involving the applicant had come on record during the complaint proceedings, and the department had not yet quantified the input tax credit involved. The applicant's offer to deposit Rs. 1 crore within six months was also a significant factor. The Court, while not discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie found it a fit case to exercise its discretion. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to several conditions, including surrendering his passport, not entering the State of Gujarat without permission until April 30, 2022 (with exceptions), marking presence monthly, and depositing Rs. 1 crore in installments within six months, with the first installment of Rs. 25 lacs within 10 days of release. Failure to comply with the deposit condition would automatically cancel the bail. The trial court was cautioned not to be influenced by the preliminary observations made by the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC, considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act and GGST Act, and the stage of investigation? Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant argued that the investigation is virtually over as a complaint has been filed. - No direct evidence involving the applicant has emerged during the complaint proceedings. - The department has not yet quantified the input tax credit involved through departmental adjudication. - The applicant is willing to deposit Rs. 1 crore within six months as a mitigating circumstance. - The maximum sentence for the alleged offence is 5 years. Respondent's Arguments: - The State opposed the grant of bail, emphasizing the nature and gravity of the offence, and the magnitude and complexity of the investigation. - Two other accused are still at large and unavailable to the investigation. - The applicant is alleged to be at the helm of an organizational and systematic chain of activities.