Mohd Shahnawaz Hussain vs. State Of Uttarakhand
Facts
The applicant, Mohd. Shahnawaz Hussain, is in judicial custody in relation to criminal complaint case no. 818/STB/RDP/03/03/2023, facing proceedings for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(i) of the UKGST/CGST Act, 2017. The offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate with a maximum sentence of five years. The applicant was previously enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court, but this bail was cancelled due to alleged suppression of previous criminal history. This cancellation was affirmed by the High Court in a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application. Subsequently, after his arrest following the dismissal of the Section 482 application, a fresh bail application was rejected by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge on 12.02.2025, which the applicant argues was not an independent decision.
Held
The Court allowed the bail application. The primary reasoning was that the offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate, and the applicant has already served more than six months in jail. The Court acknowledged that the applicant's previous bail was cancelled, and a Section 482 application was dismissed, but it chose to grant bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Court found that the applicant deserved bail, subject to stringent conditions. The ratio decidendi is that when offences are triable by a Magistrate and a significant period of custody has been served, bail can be granted even if there are prior adverse orders, provided the Court applies its mind to the current bail application. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties, surrendering his passport, and not leaving the country without the Trial Court's permission.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail, considering the nature of the offences, the maximum sentence, and the fact that the offences are triable by a Magistrate? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant argued that the offences are triable by a Magistrate and the maximum sentence is five years. He contended that his previous bail was cancelled due to suppression of criminal history, but this history was later disclosed by the prosecution, negating the suppression ground. He also argued that the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge failed to apply independent mind while rejecting his fresh bail application, being unduly influenced by the High Court's observations in the Section 482 application. The applicant asserted his innocence and that the prosecution case lacks substance. Revenue's arguments: The State did not dispute that the offences are triable by a Magistrate and that the applicant has served more than six months in jail. The State did not present any counter-arguments regarding the alleged lack of independent mind by the lower court or the applicant's innocence.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1)(b), Section 132(1)(c), Section 132(1)(i), Section 482 Cr.P.C.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025:UHC:2034 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1/463/2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Present applicant- Mohd. Shahnawaz Hussain, S/o Babu Hussain Bismil, is in judicial custody in relation to Case No. 818/STB/RDP/03/03/2023 UKGST/CGST Act, 2017. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offence, as alleged, are triable by the Magistrate and the maximum sentence is five years. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that earlier in the said crime the applicant was enlarged on bail by the court of learned Session Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. Subsequently, the bail was cancelled on the ground that this fact has been suppressed that the applicant has p
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.