Irfan Mohamadfirdos Kothi vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Irfan Mohamadfirdos Kothi, filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. The FIR was registered with the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Division-7, Enforcement, Surat, for offences under Sections 132(1)(c) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The applicant contended that he was not involved in the alleged offence and sought enlargement on bail. The State opposed the bail application, citing the nature and gravity of the offence. The applicant's counsel stated that the amount involved at the time of arrest was Rs. 25,00,00,000, which was reduced to Rs. 19,00,00,000 at the time of complaint filing. The investigation was substantially over, involving 79 companies. The applicant also offered to deposit Rs. 1,50,00,000 within 12 weeks of his release.

Held

The Court held that, prima facie, it was a fit case to exercise discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. The Court considered the applicant's submission that the investigation was substantially over and the reduction in the disputed amount. The Court also took into account the applicant's willingness to deposit Rs. 1,50,00,000 within 12 weeks of his release, with installments of Rs. 50,00,000 every four weeks. The Court ordered the applicant's release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of like amount. Conditions were imposed, including filing an undertaking to deposit the amount, not misusing liberty, not obstructing investigation, not leaving India without permission, surrendering passport, providing residential address, and marking presence at the police station monthly. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were preliminary and not to influence the trial court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations under Section 132(1)(c) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he is not involved in the commission of the alleged offence and that the investigation is substantially complete. He highlighted the reduction in the disputed amount and the number of companies involved. The applicant's counsel also made a statement that the applicant was willing to deposit Rs. 1,50,00,000 within 12 weeks of his release, without prejudice to his rights and contentions. Revenue's Arguments: The State opposed the grant of regular bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offence.