Page 118 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

20 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
CASES CITED
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia — (1980) 2 SCC 665 — Referred .................................................................... [Para 4]
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra — (2011) 1 SCC 6941 — Referred........... [Para 4]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri N.D. Nanavati, Senior Advocate with
Nandish H. Thackar, for the Applicant.
S/Shri Ankit Shah and Ronak Raval, APP., for the
Respondent.
[Order (Oral)]. - This application is filed by the applicants under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail in the event of
their arrest in connection with File No. IV/06-Prev/32/Gr.IV/2019-20 with Central
GST and Central Excise, Vadodara-II for the offence punishable under provisions of
GST Act.
2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants would
submit that considering the nature of offence, the applicants may be enlarged on
anticipatory bail by imposing suitable conditions.
3. On the other hand, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor ap-
pearing for the respondent-State has opposed this application and granting antic-
ipatory bail to the applicants looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.
4. Learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 vehemently op-
poses the bail application of the applicant No. 1 on the ground that even from the
statements of the employees of the applicant No. 1, role of the applicant No. 1 is
coming out in generating of fake and fabricated documents availed or to make
other availed and illegal input tax credit causing huge loss to the revenue.
1 4. I have heard the Learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties, perused the investigation papers and have also taken into consideration
the facts of the case, nature of allegations, role attributed to the applicants-
accused. Without discussing the evidence in detail, at this stage, I am inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. This Court has also taken into considera-
tion the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Sat-
lingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 6941,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the law laid down by the Consti-
tutional Bench in the case of Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and Others, reported in
(1980) 2 SCC 665.
Following aspects are also considered :-
(I) The applicant No. 1 is aged 69 years and having serious medical
ailments which are substantiated on the basis of medical case pa-
pers.
(II) So far as the applicant No. 2 is concerned, the applicant No. 2 is lady
accused aged 65 years and apparently, a partners for namesake in
the business.
(III) Statement of both the applicants have been recorded during the
course of investigation and hence, even joined the investigation.
(IV) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor under the instructions of the
Investigating Officer is unable to bring on record any special cir-
cumstances against the applicants.
________________________________________________________________________
1 Paragraph number as per official text.
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  182