Page 133 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] ARVIND KUMAR MUNKA v. UNION OF INDIA 35
committed by them, do not deserve any indulgence and any sympathy to
them would not only be entirely misplaced but also against the larger inter-
est of the society. The Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that such offenc-
es are preceded by cool, calculated and deliberate design, with an eye on
personal gains, and in fact, not all such offences come to the surface. If a
person knows that even after misappropriating huge public funds, he can
come out on bail after spending a few months in jail, and thereafter, he can
continue to enjoy the ill-gotten wealth, obtained by illegal means, that
would only encourage many others to commit similar crimes in the belief
that even if they have to spend a few months in jail, they can lead a lavish
and comfortable life thereafter, utilizing the public funds acquired by them.
In fact, not everyone would mind luxurious living for him and his family,
even if it comes at the cost of spending a few months in jail. A strong mes-
sage therefore needs to be sent to these white collared criminals and those
who are waiting in the wings, that in the long run, it does not pay to be on
the wrong side of law. Unless it is done, we will not be able to check the
growing tendency to adopt dubious and illegal means, to get rich overnight
so as to be able to enjoy all those luxurious of life, which now are available
in abundance, courtesy liberation and globalization of our economy. I do
not wish to suggest that the time already spent in jail is not a relevant con-
sideration in the matter of grant of bail or that the economic offenders
should not at all be enlarged on bail. Of course, we cannot keep anyone in
prison for an unreasonably long period. But, how much period spent in jail
would by itself entitle an under trial prisoner to bail, would depend upon
the facts of each case, including the amount of public funds involved, the
quantum of public funds being retained by him, the circumstances in which
the offence was committed and the nature of the defence, if any, taken by
him. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in such matters and every case
has to be examined in the light of its individual facts and circumstances.”
12. I have heard Mr. Basu Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Maity Learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India and
considered my earlier judgment dated 24-12-2019 passed in CRM 10075 of 2019
wherein I have vividly discussed the facts and the law involved in the case and
bearing in mind the gravity of the economic offence and the principle as laid in
case of P.V. Ramana Reddy v. Union of India reported in 2019 (26) G.S.T.L. J175
(S.C.) holding that though Section 69(1) of CGST, 2017 confers power upon the
Commissioner to order arrest of a person for cognizable and non-bailable offence
does not contain safeguard incorporated in Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 in view of provision of Section 70(1) of the said Act
same must be kept in mind before arresting a person. However, Section 41A(3) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide an absolute irrevocable guar-
antee against arrest, while turning down the prayer for release of the petitioner
on bail and thereby held that petitioner would not be entitled to be enlarged on
bail but gave him the liberty to approach the authority for compounding of the
offence under Section 138 of CGST Act. I once again reiterate and record that the
petitioner may be released on bail by the Learned Trial Court if he finds that he
has approached the authority for compounding of the offence on deposit of at
least 20% of the evaded amount on account of CGST.
13. In the context above, the CRM 1259 of 2020 is dismissed.

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  197