Syed Kashif Ahmed vs. The State Of T.S

Facts

The petitioner, accused No.1, seeks bail in Crime No.09 of 2025, registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The de-facto complainant, engaged in interior designing, lodged a complaint on 09.01.2025. He stated that while he had a GST registration (No. 36CXBPM9146D12F) and conducted business up to Rs. 10 lakhs annually, a GST notice dated 22.11.2024 indicated a tax liability of Rs. 35,14,000/- and Rs. 6,32,520/- for April 2020-March 2021. Upon inquiry, it was discovered that approximately 274 e-way bills were generated using his GST details for an amount of Rs. 1,48,38,146/-, leading to a GST tax demand of up to Rs. 35 lakhs. Furniture was allegedly transported via 50 autos for these fraudulent bills. The petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2025 and has been in judicial custody.

Held

The Court allowed the Criminal Petition and granted bail to the petitioner/accused No.1. The Court considered the rival submissions and the material on record, noting that the petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2025 and has been in judicial custody. It was also noted that no criminal antecedents were reported against the petitioner and ten witnesses had already been examined. The reasoning for granting bail was based on the petitioner's period of custody, the completion of investigation (barring charge sheet filing), the absence of criminal antecedents, and the examination of witnesses. The Court found these factors sufficient to incline towards granting bail. The operative directions included releasing the petitioner on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties, appearing before the SHO every Monday for eight weeks or until the charge sheet is filed, and abiding by other conditions stipulated in Section 480(3) of BNSS (formerly Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C.). No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the nature of the alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the fact that the punishment for Section 338 of BNS is below seven years? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends he has been falsely implicated, did not commit any offence, and the allegations pertain to 2021-2022, while the complaint was lodged in 2025. He highlights that the punishment for Section 338 of BNS is less than seven years. He has been in judicial custody since 11.03.2025, the investigation is complete except for the charge sheet, and he is ready to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions. Respondent's arguments: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner has committed a grave offence and the investigation is ongoing, thus he is not entitled to bail at this stage.