Pranit Hem Desai S/O Hem Dinesh Desai vs. Subhash Chandra Pande

Held

The Court allowed the application for regular bail. The primary consideration for granting bail was the undertaking provided by the applicant's father on behalf of associated companies, detailing substantial payments towards tax liabilities, and the applicant's own undertaking to deposit a further amount. The Court considered the petitioner's period of incarceration since March 18, 2019, and the maximum punishment for the alleged offenses under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which was stated to be five years. The Court also took into account the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. The bail was granted subject to stringent conditions, including executing a personal bond, surrendering passport, not leaving India without permission, marking presence at the police station monthly for six months, and abiding by the undertaking to deposit Rs. 21 lacs within six months. The Court explicitly stated that the trial court should not be influenced by the prima facie observations made in this order.

Facts

The petitioner, Pranit Hem Desai, filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. He was arrested on March 18, 2019, in connection with an arrest memo and F.No.DGCEI/AZU/12(4)73/2018-19, issued under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had been in jail since his arrest. The State opposed the bail application, citing the nature and gravity of the offense. The petitioner's father submitted an undertaking on behalf of M/s PHD Trading Corporation Ltd. and M/s Desai Impex Pvt. Ltd. regarding payment of tax liabilities. The respondent department expressed satisfaction with the undertaking.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the alleged offenses under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that considering the nature of the offense and the fact that the maximum punishment prescribed is five years, he should be enlarged on regular bail. He also highlighted his period of incarceration since March 18, 2019. Crucially, the petitioner's father provided an undertaking detailing significant payments towards tax liabilities by associated companies, M/s PHD Trading Corporation Ltd. and M/s Desai Impex Pvt. Ltd., and an additional undertaking by the applicant himself for a further deposit. Revenue's Argument: The respondent-State opposed the grant of regular bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offense. However, upon receiving instructions, the respondent department stated they were satisfied with the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant.