Basudev Mittal vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Basudev Mittal, proprietor of M/s Shree Sainath Enterprises, is the applicant in a second bail application before the High Court of Chhattisgarh. He was arrested in connection with Crime No.178/GST/2021-22, registered at the Office of the Principal Commissioner, Central Excise and Central GST, Raipur, for an alleged offence under Section 132(1)(C) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner has been in jail since March 30, 2022. His first bail application was dismissed on merits on July 15, 2022. He has been granted ad interim bail twice for medical treatment, for one month each time, with extensions. The dispute involves allegations of procuring fake invoices from fictitious firms to avail ineligible tax credit and commit fraud.

Held

The Court held that there was no change in circumstances since the dismissal of the petitioner's first bail application on merits. The reasoning was based on the fact that the core allegations against the petitioner, involving the procurement of fake invoices and availing ineligible tax credit, remained the same. While the petitioner had been granted ad interim bail for medical treatment, the Court did not consider this to be a significant change in circumstances that would justify entertaining a repeat bail application after the initial dismissal on merits. The Court noted that the earlier bail application was dismissed on merits, implying a consideration of the substantive grounds for bail. Therefore, without a material alteration in the factual or legal matrix, the Court found no reason to deviate from its previous decision. The ratio decidendi is that a second bail application will not be entertained on the same grounds as the first, which was dismissed on merits, unless there is a substantial change in circumstances. The operative direction was the dismissal of the second bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether there has been a change in circumstances since the dismissal of the petitioner's first bail application on merits, warranting the entertainment of a second bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that he has been incarcerated since March 30, 2022, the trial has not commenced post the rejection of his first bail application, and he is suffering from various diseases. He highlights that he was granted ad interim bail for medical treatment, which was subsequently extended, and submits that these factors constitute a change in circumstances. The petitioner relies on the medical documents annexed to the application. Respondent's arguments: The respondent (Union of India through the Central GST Office) strongly opposes the bail application. They argue that the petitioner is involved in procuring fake invoices from fake and fictitious firms, leading to ineligible tax credit and fraud. The respondent further submits that the petitioner has already been granted ad interim bail for over two months for treatment, which he has received, and therefore, there is no ground for further release on bail.