Bail granted under BNSS 2023 in case registered u/s 132 of Punjab GST Act 2017

High Court grants bail under the provisions of BNSS, 2023 in a case registered under Section 132 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has granted bail to the assessee under the provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a case registered under Section 132 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4495 (2025) (04) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case the assessee petitioner had filed a Petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in a case registered under Section 132 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 at Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). The Petitioner was behind bars for a period of nearly four months.

Before the Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner argued that under the special Act i.e. the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, there is specific procedure laid down to initiate penal action against the petitioner, if any offence is made out at all, but lodging of the present FIR would tantamount to double jeopardy.

It was submitted that no notice under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act was given to the petitioner, more so, there was no assessment of alleged embezzlement of GST committed by the petitioner, therefore regular bail be granted to the petitioner.

On the other hand, the DGGI opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to influence the other persons, more so, he was owning number of firms and the offence committed by him had caused loss to the economy of the State and there was evasion of around Rs. 30 crores and the investigation was still going on. It was also stated that the petitioner is involved in more FIR, meaning thereby he was a habitual offender.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would solve no purpose.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an exception.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that it was conscious of the fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the Apex court.

Further, the Hon’ble High Court observed that pre-conviction period of the under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in view the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the petitioner in other cases was concerned, the Hon’ble High Court placed reliance on an order of its own wherein while referring Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Court had held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the concession of bail.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court directed that petitioner be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Object of assessment proceedings is not to find empirically correct solution on every fact issue – HC
• Penalty u/s 270A deleted as assessee filed revised computation during scrutiny
• Penalty u/s 271B for unfilled column 40 in Tax Audit Report Form 3CD deleted by ITAT
• Merely ex-parte rectifying computation without amending assessment order not make it nullity- ITAT
• Once assessee discharges primary onus, it shifts to AO to bring evidence to contrary – ITAT