Bread-earning sons granted bail in GST fraud case after over a year in custody.

Key Takeaways:

1. Personal liberty is a fundamental right and should not be curtailed without due process.

2. Bail should be the norm, and refusal should be the exception, especially in cases where the accused has been in custody for a long time.

3. The court should consider the individual circumstances of each case, including the accused's family situation and the likelihood of tampering with evidence or fleeing.

Issue:

Whether the two accused, who have been in custody for over a year, should be granted bail in a case involving alleged GST fraud.

Facts:

The two petitioners, Smruti Ranjan Mohanty and his brother, were arrested on 21.12.2020 and have been in custody since then. They were accused of being involved in the creation and operation of 12 fictitious firms to avail and utilize bogus input tax credit of Rs. 20.45 crores through fraudulent purchase invoices without any actual purchase of goods. The prosecution alleged that they were part of a collusion to evade taxes to the tune of approximately Rs. 42 crores.

Arguments:

1. Prosecution: The accused were involved in a serious economic offense and should not be granted bail as they may tamper with evidence or flee.

2. Defense: The allegations against the petitioners are baseless, and they were merely following orders or had no involvement in the alleged fraud. They have been cooperating with the authorities and should be granted bail as they are the sole breadwinners for their family, which is facing hardship due to their prolonged custody.

Key Legal Precedents:

1. Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 2 SCC 281]: The Supreme Court discussed the concept of bail and its importance in the administration of justice.

2. Moti Ram v. State of M.P. [(1978) 4 SCC 47]: The Supreme Court highlighted the grave consequences of pre-trial detention.

3. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012) 1 SCC 40]: The Supreme Court emphasized that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment and that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Judgment:

The court granted bail to the two petitioners, considering that they had been in custody for over a year and were the sole breadwinners for their family. The court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. However, the court imposed certain conditions, such as cooperating with the trial, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and not leaving India without permission.

FAQs:

Q1. What was the significance of the court's decision?

A1. The court's decision highlighted the importance of personal liberty and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. It also emphasized that bail should be the norm, and refusal should be the exception, especially in cases where the accused has been in custody for a long time.

Q2. What factors did the court consider in granting bail?

A2. The court considered the individual circumstances of the case, including the accused's family situation, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or fleeing, and the fact that they had been in custody for over a year.

Q3. What conditions did the court impose while granting bail?

A3. The court imposed conditions such as cooperating with the trial, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, not leaving India without permission, and the possibility of cancellation of bail if involved in similar offenses or other criminal activities.

Q4. What legal precedents did the court rely on?

A4. The court relied on several Supreme Court precedents, including Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 2 SCC 281], Moti Ram v. State of M.P. [(1978) 4 SCC 47], and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012) 1 SCC 40], which discussed the concept of bail, personal liberty, and the presumption of innocence.