Vishnu Kumar Saw Alias Bishnu Sah vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court, while considering the petitioner's bail application, noted that charges had been framed on May 2, 2019, and that despite six witnesses being cited in the final form, none had been examined. The expected date of trial conclusion was within six months. The Court also took into account the period of detention of the petitioner. Although the petitioner raised a significant legal issue regarding the lack of sanction for prosecution under Section 134 of the Jharkhand GST Act, the Court did not explicitly rule on this issue. Instead, based on the facts and circumstances, including the period of detention and the progress of the trial, the Court was inclined to grant bail. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to several conditions, including physical presence in court, furnishing cell number and Aadhar card, having a local solvent bailor with landed property, and depositing Rs. 25,000/- as cost to the Advocates' Sports Club.

Facts

The petitioner, Vishnu Kumar Saw, is an accused in a case registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC and Sections 132(1)(b)/132(1)(c)/132(1)(e) of the Jharkhand GST Act. He had previously applied for regular bail in B.A. No. 62/19, which was rejected on April 10, 2019. The petitioner has been in custody since September 24, 2018. He argues that he is innocent and that co-accused have been granted bail. The petitioner also contends that no sanction for prosecution was obtained from the Commissioner as required by Section 134 of the Jharkhand GST Act. A status report indicates that charges have been framed, but no witnesses have been examined, with an expected trial conclusion within six months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prosecution under Section 132 of the Jharkhand GST Act is vitiated due to the absence of previous sanction from the Commissioner, as mandated by Section 134 of the Act? The petitioner argued that Section 134 of the Jharkhand GST Act explicitly requires prior sanction from the Commissioner for any court to take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act. He contended that in this case, no such sanction was obtained, rendering the prosecution invalid. He also referred to Section 69 (power to arrest) and Section 137 (offences by companies) of the Act. The State, through the learned APP, opposed the prayer for bail, without specifically addressing the contention regarding the lack of sanction for prosecution.