Sat Bhushan Sharma vs. Senoir Intelligence Officer

Held

The Court held that further custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not necessary. It was noted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, as revealed by the prosecuting agency. In light of these facts, the Court was inclined to grant bail. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The bail application was allowed, directing the petitioner's release upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties of the like amount, with one surety being local, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The order is subject to the petitioner complying with specified conditions, including cooperation in the trial, not tampering with evidence, not committing similar offenses, not seeking unnecessary adjournments, and not leaving India without prior permission.

Facts

The petitioner, Sat Bhushan Sharma, proprietor of M/s Sat Bhushan Contractor, filed a second application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. He has been in custody since May 23, 2023, in connection with a case registered for offenses punishable under Section 69/132 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum punishment prescribed for these offenses is five years. The charge-sheet (complaint) was filed on July 19, 2023. The respondent is the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Bhopal Zonal Unit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. given that he has been in custody since May 23, 2023, and the charge-sheet has been filed on July 19, 2023, for offenses under Section 69/132 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, with a maximum punishment of five years? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that further custodial interrogation is not necessary as the charge-sheet has been filed. Revenue's Argument: The prosecuting agency, referring to paragraph 17 of its reply, did not dispute that the charge-sheet had been filed. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue beyond this point.