Vijaychandrakant Trivedi @ Trivedi Vijaybhai Chandra Shankarbhai vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the applicants were entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. The Court considered several aspects, including the FIR registration date (August 30, 2019), the applicants' custody since that date, the conclusion of the investigation, and the filing of the complaint. A significant factor was the submission that a co-accused from the same FIR had been protected by a Division Bench of the High Court in separate proceedings challenging the prosecution. The Court also took into account the maximum sentence that could be imposed and the nature of the offence. Crucially, the State could not present any special circumstances against the applicants. The Court found it to be a fit case to exercise its discretion and enlarge the applicants on bail. The operative direction was to release the applicants on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety of like amount, subject to several conditions, including not misusing liberty, not obstructing investigation, surrendering passports, not leaving Gujarat without permission, marking presence at the police station monthly, and not changing residence without permission. The Court explicitly stated that the trial court should not be influenced by these preliminary observations.

Facts

The applicants, Vijaychandrakant Trivedi and another, filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. They were arrested on August 30, 2019, in connection with File No.SRV-KAMI-1/Ghatak-76, Bhavnagar, GST, for offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(i), 132(1)(c), and 132(5) of the GST Act. The First Information Report was registered on the same date. The investigation concerning the applicants has concluded, and a complaint has been filed. The applicants argued that a co-accused in the same FIR, from whom alleged invoices/bills/documents used for creating input tax credit were seized, had been granted protection by a Division Bench of the High Court in separate proceedings challenging the prosecution. The State opposed the bail application, citing the nature and gravity of the offence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(i), 132(1)(c), and 132(5) of the GST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The applicants contended that they should be enlarged on bail with suitable conditions, considering the nature of the offence. They also highlighted that a co-accused in the same FIR had been protected by a Division Bench of the High Court in separate proceedings challenging the prosecution. They further pointed to the maximum sentence that could be imposed. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent-State opposed the grant of regular bail, emphasizing the nature and gravity of the offence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, under instructions from the Investigating Officer, was unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the applicants.