Mohammed Yunus@Mohammed Yunus Khan@Mohemmed Yunus@Yunus Khan vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that there were no grounds to entertain the second bail application. The reasoning was that the first bail application of the petitioner had already been decided on its merits through a detailed order. The only subsequent development was the filing of the charge-sheet. The Court found this to be insufficient to constitute a change in circumstances that would necessitate entertaining a second bail application. Therefore, the Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application was rejected. The ratio decidendi is that a second bail application will not be entertained merely on the filing of a charge-sheet if the first application was decided on merits and no other material change in circumstances is demonstrated.
Facts
The petitioner, Mohammed Yunus, filed a second bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The FIR, No. DGGI/JZU/INV/GRH/GST/109/2019-20, was registered by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Goods and Service Tax, Intelligence Directorate, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur. The alleged offenses are under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (f), and (l) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 132(1)(i)(iv) and (5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's first bail application was previously decided on merits. The court noted that no change in circumstances, other than the filing of the charge-sheet, warranted entertaining the second bail application.
Key Issues
1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to entertain a second bail application when the first bail application was decided on merits and there has been no significant change in circumstances, apart from the filing of the charge-sheet? (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought bail, implying a belief that circumstances warranted a fresh consideration. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments made by the petitioner for entertaining the second bail application beyond the implicit request for bail. Respondent's (Union of India) Argument: The respondent, through the Senior Intelligence Officer, likely opposed the bail application, arguing that the filing of the charge-sheet alone does not constitute a material change in circumstances justifying a second bail application after the first was decided on merits. The judgment indicates the respondent's stance by stating no grounds were made out for entertaining the second application.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1)(b), Section 132(1)(c), Section 132(1)(f), Section 132(1)(l), Section 132(1)(i)(iv), Section 132(1)(5), Section 439
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 14/09/2020
Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
File/F.I.R.
No.
DGGI/JZU/INV/GRH/GST/109/2019-20 Complaint No.02/2020 was registered Senior Intelligence Officer Goods And Service Tax, Intelligence Directorate, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur for offence under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (f) & (1) of Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 132(1)(i)(iv) Read with (5) Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. 3. No ground is made out for entertaining the second bail application as the first bail application of the petitio
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 Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.