Shabana Aslam Kalliwala vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Shabana Aslam Kalliwala, filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. The application pertains to File No. DIV-5/ENF/AC-3/SHABANA ASLAM/2021-22/B.11, registered with the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Enforcement, Vadodara. The alleged offences are punishable under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The applicant has been in custody since August 1, 2021. The alleged offence took place in the year 2020-2021. The applicant is a 50-year-old lady and proprietor, with her son managing the day-to-day administration of the firm.

Held

The Court allowed the application for regular bail. The Court considered the fact that the alleged offence occurred in the year 2020-2021 and the applicant had been in custody since August 1, 2021. The Court also took into account submissions regarding the applicant being a lady accused aged 50 years, whose son manages the firm's daily affairs, and the maximum sentence imposable. Crucially, the Court noted that the prosecution was unable to bring forth any special circumstances against the applicant. Relying on the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Court was of the prima facie opinion that it was a fit case to exercise discretion and enlarge the applicant on bail. The applicant was ordered to be released on executing 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 passport, not leaving Gujarat without permission, marking presence monthly, and furnishing residence details. The trial court was cautioned not to be influenced by the preliminary observations made by the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 and GGST Act, 2017? 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 highlighted that the applicant is a lady accused, aged 50 years, and her son is the authorized administrator responsible for daily operations. They also pointed out the date of arrest (August 1, 2021) and the likely filing date of the complaint (September 30, 2021), as well as the maximum sentence that could be imposed. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the respondent-State, opposed the grant of regular bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offence. However, under instructions from the Investigating Officer, they were unable to present any special circumstances against the applicant.