Sarfraz Jaliyawala S/O Humayu Jaliyawala vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the claimed changes in circumstances did not favour the present applicant. Firstly, the interim protection granted to co-accused Bansal was deemed irrelevant to the present applicant, as the allegations in the FIR were separate. The Court noted that whether Bansal claimed ITC benefits was strictly his business and had no bearing on the present applicant. Secondly, the letter dated August 13, 2021, from the Office of the Commissioner of Central GST, Belapur, to M/s. Bansal Traders, explicitly stated that no comments could be offered on whether goods were supplied. The Court found no change in circumstances from the earlier occasion when the applicant's anticipatory bail application was unconditionally withdrawn after full arguments and consideration of the material against him. Therefore, the Court refused to entertain the second application.

Facts

The applicant, Sarfraz Jaliyawala, filed a second anticipatory bail application after his first application was unconditionally withdrawn. The first application was withdrawn on July 29, 2021, after the Court expressed disinclination to grant relief. The applicant claimed changed circumstances, citing an order dated August 10, 2021, where a co-accused's anticipatory bail was initially rejected, referencing Input Tax Credit (ITC) benefits and a GST department letter. However, the same co-accused later obtained interim protection on August 26, 2021, with reference to a letter dated August 13, 2021, from the Commissioner of Central GST, Belapur. The applicant also pointed to a reply from APMC regarding goods not being reflected in their records. The applicant is the petitioner, and the State of Maharashtra is the respondent. The tax period is not specified. The order under challenge is the rejection of the second anticipatory bail application by the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the subsequent interim protection granted to a co-accused, Premprakash Bansal, constitutes a change in circumstances in favour of the present applicant, Sarfraz Jaliyawala, for the purpose of granting anticipatory bail, particularly in light of the GST department's letter dated August 13, 2021, and APMC's reply. (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The applicant argued that the interim protection granted to co-accused Bansal, referencing a GST department letter and APMC's reply, represented a change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of his bail application. He contended that the GST department's letter and APMC's records might indirectly support his case. Respondent's arguments: The State did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the alleged changes in circumstances were not considered favorable to the applicant. The Court noted that the earlier application was fully argued, and the material against the applicant was considered, leading to its withdrawal.