Vijay Vishwakarma vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Held
The High Court allowed the bail application. While acknowledging the specific allegations made by the State regarding offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, and 468 of the IPC, the Court considered the petitioner's submission that he had been in custody since October 11, 2020, and that he had already been enlarged on bail in another case with similar allegations by the trial court. The Court also noted the State's inability to dispute the period of custody. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail. The operative direction was to release the applicant on bail upon furnishing a surety bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one local surety, subject to verification of the fact that he has already been granted bail in the other case and no other cases are registered against him. The Court also included standard bail conditions and specific directions related to COVID-19 protocols.
Facts
The petitioner, Vijay Vishwakarma, filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. He was arrested on October 11, 2020, by Police Station Makroniya, District Sagar, in connection with Crime No. 294/2020 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that he was responsible for depositing GST for three firms but failed to do so and produced false receipts. The charge-sheet was filed on January 8, 2021. The petitioner stated he was falsely implicated and had already been granted bail in another case with similar allegations by the trial court on July 2, 2021. He has been in custody since October 11, 2020.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. considering the allegations of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 409 of the IPC, and his period of custody. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated, the investigation is complete with the filing of the charge-sheet, and he has been in custody since October 11, 2020. He further submitted that he has already been granted bail in another case involving similar allegations by the trial court, and there is no further need for custodial interrogation. He is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the court. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State opposed the bail application, stating there are specific allegations against the petitioner that prima facie show the commission of offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, and 468 of the IPC. The State acknowledged that the petitioner has been in custody since October 11, 2020, but argued that the statements of witnesses are yet to be recorded.
Sections Cited
Section 439, Section 420, Section 467, Section 468, Section 409
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 11.10.2020 by Police Station Makroniya, District Sagar (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.294/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegation against the present applicant is that he used to deposit GST of three firms, but he has not deposited the same and produced false receipts.
It is submitted that the
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 Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.