Shri Sentu Dey vs. The State Of Tripura

Held

The High Court held that the condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge directing the petitioner to pay the entire unpaid tax amount within one month as a condition of bail was set aside. The Court reasoned that the tax liability attributed to the petitioner was still a subject matter of investigation, and opportunities existed for the petitioner to challenge the assessment in appropriate statutory forums. The Court reiterated the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sumit Mehta and Dataram Singh, that "any condition" under Section 439 Cr.P.C. must be interpreted as a reasonable condition that does not defeat the order of grant of bail and should not be so strict as to be incapable of compliance. While setting aside the specific condition of tax payment, the Court clarified that the petitioner must fulfill the other conditions of bail imposed by the impugned order and could seek relaxation of any condition on appropriate grounds by filing a petition in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge. It was also made clear that this order does not grant any immunity from the tax liability.

Facts

This criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated February 25, 2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sepahijala Judicial District. The Additional Sessions Judge, while granting bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in Bishalgarh P.S. case No. 02 of 2021 (registered under Sections 406 & 409 IPC and Section 132 of the Tripura GST Act), imposed a condition that the petitioner deposit the unpaid tax amount with the Taxing Authority. The case originated from a complaint lodged by the Superintendent of Tax, Bishalgarh, alleging a tax liability of Rs. 18,55,53,477/- for the years 2017-2018 to 2019-2020, which the petitioner allegedly failed to pay despite receiving notices. The petitioner was arrested, and his initial bail application was rejected. The Additional Sessions Judge granted bail, subject to several conditions, including the deposit of the unpaid tax amount within one month.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge to deposit the entire unpaid tax amount as a condition for granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is a reasonable and permissible condition, or if it negates the purpose of granting bail? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the tax evasion allegations are still under investigation, and no court has yet concluded their veracity. Therefore, imposing such a stringent condition to pay the entire tax amount while considering a bail application was inappropriate. The petitioner contended that the phrase "any condition" in Section 439 Cr.P.C. does not grant absolute power to impose unreasonable conditions that would defeat the bail order. Reliance was placed on Sumit Mehta Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi. Respondent's (Revenue's) arguments: The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner had evaded a huge amount of tax, and the Taxing Authority had assessed the liability after proper assessment. It was further argued that the petitioner had admitted his liability and had furnished a bail bond accepting all conditions, including the payment of the entire tax amount. Therefore, the petitioner could not retract from the terms of the bail bond, and the impugned order was justified. Other relevant precedents cited by the petitioner include Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. and Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., emphasizing that bail conditions should not be so strict as to be incapable of compliance.