Page 132 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

34 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
6. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not supplied any goods or
services or both and did not issue any invoice in violation of the provisions of
CGST Act, 2017 with the intention to evade tax or any of the offence enumerated
in Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, the petitioner has renewed his
prayer for his release on bail in connection with this case now pending before the
Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South).
7. It would appear from the Order-sheet of the Judicial Magistrate, 2nd
Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) vide order dated 19-2-2020 that case has
been posted on 3rd March, 2020 for production of the accused from custody and
for consideration of charge.
8. Mr. K.K. Maity Learned Counsel for the opposite party-Union of In-
dia reference to a decision in case of State of Tamil Nadu v. S.A. Raja [2006 (1) SCC
(Cri.), 58] to submit that second application in absence of change in circumstanc-
es, the principle of res judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but repeated
filing of bail applications without there being any change of circumstances
would lead to bad precedents.
9. Reliance is also placed to case in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji
Porwal and Another [1987 SCC (Cri.) 364 = 1987 (29) E.L.T. 483 (S.C.)] to argue that
long incarceration in fail is no ground for releasing the accused on bail as in the
cited case it has been held that mere fact that six years had elapsed, for which
time- lag the prosecution was in no way responsible, was no good ground for
refusing to act in order to promote the interest of justice in an age when delays in
the Court have become a part of life and the order of the day.
10. It has been submitted that the Community or the State is not a per-
sona non-grata whose cause may be treated with disdain. The entire Community
is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not
brought to books. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon pas-
sions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and
deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequences
to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the Community can be mani-
fested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the
system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism
from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmind-
ful of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest.
11. Again a reference to a decision in case of Mukesh Jain v. CBI report-
ed in (2010) 1 AD (Delhi) 443 : (2010) 88 AIC 319 : (2010) 1 JCC 417 : (2010) 1 LRC
18 is made to the observation in paragraph 9 thus -
“9. It is true that the petitioner has been in custody for more than eight
months and the chargesheet has already been filed, but considering the
huge amount of public money, being retained by him, his having been in
custody for eight months by itself would, in the facts and circumstances of
this case, not entitle him to grant of bail at this stage. The economic offences
having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds
whether of nationalized banks or of the State and its instrumentalities need
to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the econ-
omy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the fi-
nancial health of our country. Therefore, the persons involved in such of-
fences, particularly those who continue to reap the benefit of the crime

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  196