Shivnath Singh Parmar vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, finding merit in the submissions of the applicant's counsel. The Court noted that the applicant claimed to be the owner of the truck and not named in the FIR, and that the driver had escaped. It was also argued that the case was at best of GST and all offenses under the CGST Act are compoundable, with the adjudication of tax liability not having been completed. The applicant's counsel also emphasized that the applicant had no criminal history apart from the present case and undertook to cooperate with the investigation and trial without tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The Court also took judicial notice of the overcrowding of jails during the pandemic, referencing a Supreme Court suo motu writ petition. In light of these submissions and without making observations on the merits of the case, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to be enlarged on bail. The applicant was released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, with conditions to not tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, appear before the trial court, and not induce or threaten any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Shivnath Singh Parmar, who has been in jail since August 25, 2021. The applicant was implicated in Case Crime No. 161 of 2021 at Police Station- Kalyanpur, District- Fatehpur, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 395 (dacoity) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy). The applicant's bail application was previously rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. The applicant claims to be falsely implicated and argues that the case is primarily related to GST, with all offenses under the CGST Act being compoundable. He states he is the owner of the truck involved, not named in the FIR, and had provided necessary documents to the driver. The adjudication of tax liability was not complete at the time of the application. The applicant has no prior criminal history.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 161 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504, 332, 353, 395, 120-B of the IPC, considering the nature of the alleged offenses and the applicant's circumstances? (Mixed question of law and fact). Petitioner's arguments: The applicant contends he has been falsely implicated and the case is primarily related to GST, with offenses under the CGST Act being compoundable. He asserts he is the truck owner, not named in the FIR, and had provided all necessary papers to the driver. He highlights that tax liability adjudication was incomplete and he has no criminal history apart from this case. He also assures cooperation with proceedings and no tampering with evidence or witnesses. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the submissions made by the applicant's counsel from the record, particularly regarding the applicant's lack of criminal history.