Sanjaybhai Balubhai Mashru vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjaybhai Balubhai Mashru, filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. The case pertains to an offence registered on 16.10.2020 by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Enforcement Vibhag-11, Rajkot, under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (f), (k), and (l) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Act. The alleged offence occurred on 29.07.2020. The petitioner has been in jail since 19.08.2020. The investigation has concluded, and a complaint has been filed. The petitioner's father-in-law, Pravinbhai Bhagwanjibhai Tanna, who had identical role attributed to him, was enlarged on bail.

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to regular bail. The Court considered that the complaint was registered on 16.10.2020 for an offence alleged to have occurred on 29.07.2020, and the applicant has been in jail since 19.08.2020. Crucially, the investigation has concluded, and a complaint has been filed. The Court noted the submission that the applicant's father-in-law, Pravinbhai Bhagwanjibhai Tanna, with an identical role, was enlarged on bail by this Court. The Court also considered the maximum sentence that could be imposed. The respondent-State could not present any special circumstances against the applicant. Therefore, exercising discretion, the Court found it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail, subject to certain conditions, including executing a personal bond and surety, not misusing liberty, not obstructing investigation, surrendering passport, not leaving the State without permission, marking presence monthly, and furnishing current address. The Court also directed that the trial court should not be influenced by these preliminary observations.

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), (c), (f), (k), and (l) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Act? The petitioner argued that considering the nature of the offence and the fact that a co-accused with an identical role, Pravinbhai Bhagwanjibhai Tanna, was granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.19830 of 2020, the applicant should also be enlarged on bail by applying the principle of parity. The petitioner also highlighted the concluded investigation, the period of incarceration, and the maximum sentence. The respondent-State opposed the grant of bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offence. However, the learned APP, under instructions from the Investigating Officer, was unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the applicant.