Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Goyal vs Union Of India on 13 July, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11992 of 2020 Applicant :- Rajesh Goyal Opposite Party :- Union of India Counsel for Applicant :- Shivendra Raj Singhal,Dharmendra Singhal(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Sri Shivendra Raj Singhal, learned Advocate for the applicant is ready to argue the case through physical hearing. Thus, prayer made for Video Conference of the matter has become infructuous.
This application under Section 482 has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated 13.03.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 226 of 2019 (Rajesh Goyal Vs. Union of India through office of DGGI, Ghaziabad) arising out of case no. 154 of 2018, under Section 132 (1) (b)& ( c ) of the Central Goods & Services Tax, 2017, Police Station DGGI, Ghaziabad, district Meerut and to remove the different conditions imposed on the applicant.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that although the applicant was granted default bail vide order dated 16.05.2019 but court concerned imposed a condition to deposit Rs. 10 crores as bank guarantee (security) in the court as well as to deposit Rs. 5 crores with the department concerned.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is also that conditions imposed in the order dated 16.05.1990 are onerous which actually amount to denial of bail. Facts still are to be proved and due to onerous condition imposed in the order dated 16.05.2019 applicant could not fulfill the same, therefore, he was not released on bail. Criminal Revision was filed before the Sessions Judge concerned but the same was also dismissed on insufficient ground. It was further argued that if onerous conditions imposed in the bail order are not set aside, irreparable loss would be caused to the applicant and he will not be able to enjoy the fruits of the bail order. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment in Application U/S 482 No. 45068 of 2019 of this Court and judgment of the Apex Court in Sandeep Jain Vs. National Capital Territory reported in 2000 AIR (SC) 714.
Sri B. K. Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India argued that revisional court itself in the impugned order has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Stars Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Harsh Dev Thakur reported in AIR 2019 SC 718, wherein the Apex Court has enhanced the amount of deposit finding the amount fixed by the Trial Court inadequate. It is also argued that there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order.
I have considered the submissions and have gone through the entire record.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, criminal prosecution was started against the applicant as crime no. 154 of 2018, under Section 132 (1) (b) and ( c ) of C.G.S.T.. Since charge sheet was not submitted within the prescribed period provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicant was allowed on default bail vide order dated 16.05.2019 imposing conditions as follows :
(i) To file bank guarantee before the court concerned amounting to Rs. 10 crores.
(ii) To deposit amount of Rs. 5 crores before the court concerned through cheque/bank draft or to file the same through cash.
Relaxation was given to the applicant that aforesaid conditions may be fulfilled by the family members or any other representative of the accused. It was also observed that aforesaid deposit will be subject to the final decision of the case.
As is clear from the record, allegation against the applicant is for evasion of Rs. 90 crores of C.G.S.T.. It further appears that applicant against the order passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut approached before the Sessions Judge concerned through Criminal Revision. It is also settled that if conditions imposed in the bail order are onerous it amounts denial of bail.
In the present matter, as per prosecution matter involved a huge amount of tax evasion i.e. Rs. 90 crores but keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions raised across the bar, I find that conditions imposed in the order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut allowing the default bail to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 10 crores and also to deposit Rs. 5 crores, as mentioned above, are onerous. If it is allowed to sustain certainly it will amount denial of bail.
Thus, this Court is of the view that condition no. 1 and 2 imposed in the order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut exercising extraordinary jurisdiction vested in the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are liable to be modified as follows :
Applicant in compliance of the condition no. 1 will furnish bank guarantee (security) of Rs. 5 crores only in place of Rs. 10 crores before the court concerned. In compliance of condition no. 2 to deposit Rs. 5 crores through cash or cheque or bank draft before the court concerned is also modified to the extent of Rs. 2.5 crores.
Thus application is liable to be partly allowed and is partly allowed as discussed above.
The party shall file self attested computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad. The concerned court/authority/official shall verify the authenticity of such computerised copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 13.7.2020 Sachdeva