Hem Dinesh Desai vs. R.I.Pande

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the applicant's submission that custodial interrogation was not necessary and his willingness to cooperate with the investigation. Crucially, the Court took into account the undertakings provided by the applicant and his son (in the case of a co-accused, Pranit Hem Desai) to deposit significant amounts towards tax liability. These undertakings included payments of Rs. 5,00,000/- already made, reversal of Rs. 1,27,00,000/- in credit balance, cash payment of Rs. 18,20,000/-, and a further payment of Rs. 54,00,000/- by M/s Desai Impex Pvt. Ltd. within six months. The respondent-department expressed satisfaction with these undertakings. The Court also referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia regarding anticipatory bail. The applicant was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety, subject to several conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, appearance as required, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without permission. The Court also clarified that the investigating agency could still apply for police remand, and the Magistrate would decide on merits.

Facts

The applicant, Hem Dinesh Desai, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with summons issued by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) concerning alleged offenses under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The summons were dated March 20, 2019, March 22, 2019, April 3, 2019, and April 4, 2019. The applicant argued that custodial interrogation was not necessary and that he would cooperate with the investigation and trial. He also stated his willingness to abide by all conditions, including the investigating agency's right to seek his remand. The State opposed the bail application due to the nature and gravity of the offenses.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant contended that custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage and that he would fully cooperate with the investigation and trial. He expressed readiness to comply with all conditions, including the possibility of remand proceedings initiated by the investigating agency, while reserving his right to oppose such applications on merits. The applicant also highlighted that co-accused and his son had undertaken to deposit substantial amounts towards tax liability, suggesting a willingness to resolve the matter financially. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent-State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offenses under the GST Act.