Hiten Jayendrakumar Mandaliya vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, Hiten Jayendrakumar Mandaliya, filed an application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The FIR was registered on January 11, 2020, for alleged offences occurring between June 26, 2016, and September 2019. The petitioner has been in jail since December 6, 2019. The investigation has concluded, and a charge-sheet has been filed. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the origin of the offence lies under the provisions of the GST Act, and criminal proceedings initiated by Central and State agencies under GST had already seen the petitioner enlarged on bail. The petitioner also argued that the complainant was responsible for the offence and shifted the burden by alleging the complainant asked the petitioner to close the proprietorship and surrender the GST number. The State opposed the bail application.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. The Court considered the fact that the FIR was registered for offences alleged to have occurred between June 26, 2016, and September 2019, and the petitioner had been in jail since December 6, 2019. Crucially, the Court noted that the investigation had concluded and a charge-sheet was filed. The submission that the origin of the offence was under the provisions of the GST Act, and that the petitioner had been arrested and subsequently enlarged on bail in both Central and State GST proceedings, was given significant weight. The Court also considered the petitioner's contention that the complainant was responsible for the offence and had shifted the burden. The State was unable to present any special circumstances against the applicant. Relying on the principles laid down in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Court found it a fit case to exercise its discretion and grant bail. The petitioner 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 not misusing liberty, not obstructing investigation, surrendering his passport, not leaving Gujarat without permission, marking presence monthly, and furnishing his address. The trial court was cautioned not to be influenced by the preliminary observations made by the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC, considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, and the fact that the origin of the dispute relates to GST provisions? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner argued that the core of the alleged offence stems from GST provisions, and he had already been granted bail in separate criminal proceedings initiated by GST authorities. - It was contended that the complainant was responsible for the entire offence and had shifted the blame onto the petitioner by falsely claiming the petitioner was asked to close the proprietorship and surrender the GST number. - The petitioner submitted that considering the nature of the offence and his period of incarceration, he should be enlarged on bail with suitable conditions. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The learned APP, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, opposed the grant of regular bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offence. - The State was unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the applicant.