Raidanbhai Govindbhai Dangar vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Raidanbhai Govindbhai Dangar, filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. The application pertains to Complaint No. S.G.No.1 of 2020, registered with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, for offences under Sections 132(1)(a),(f),(h),(j),(k) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act and Central Goods and Services Act, and Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was registered on October 8, 2020, for an alleged offence on June 29, 2019. The applicant has been in custody since August 11, 2020. The investigation has concluded, and the complaint has been filed. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was merely a driver, misused by co-accused, and that no evidence indicated the money trail led to GST evasion. The applicant's wife offered to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- as a show of bonafide.

Held

The Court held that the applicant was entitled to regular bail. The Court considered that the complaint was registered on October 8, 2020, for an alleged offence on June 29, 2019, and the applicant had been in custody since August 11, 2020. The investigation was concluded, and the complaint filed. The Court noted the submission that the applicant was merely a driver, misused by co-accused, and that no evidence indicated a money trail for GST evasion. The offer to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- was also considered. Crucially, the State could not 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 discretion and enlarge the applicant on bail. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety, subject to several conditions, including depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- within four weeks of release.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail in connection with Complaint No. S.G.No.1 of 2020, registered for offences under Sections 132(1)(a),(f),(h),(j),(k) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act and Central Goods and Services Act, and Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant's counsel argued that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant should be enlarged on bail with suitable conditions. They contended that the applicant was merely a driver, misused by co-accused, and that the investigation found no evidence linking the money trail to GST evasion. Furthermore, the applicant's wife offered to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- to demonstrate bonafide. Respondent's Arguments: The State opposed the grant of regular bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offence. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, under instructions from the Investigating Officer, was unable to present any special circumstances against the applicant.