The Delhi HC observed that Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the CrPC has been recognized by the apex court as a constitutional right to bail when procedural delays occur

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court held that the Commissioner of Central Tax, GST Delhi (West) dismissed a petition challenging bail in a Rs. 200 crore fake GST invoice case. In this case, the petitioner is the Commissioner of Central Tax, GST Delhi (West). The petitioner has filed the petition with the intention of challenging the bail granted to the respondent by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) on 05.02.2019. Get a Copy of Supreme Court Judgements on GST, Click here It was the case of the prosecution that the respondent and the co-accused, Rajesh Jindal, were involved in the creation of fake invoices by dummy entities, and they manipulated input tax credit (ITC) on fake sales exceeding Rs. 200 crores, resulting in tax evasion of Rs. 27.54 crores. Both of them were arrested on 31.07.2018. The respondent was granted bail by the CMM on 20.08.2018, furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000. But later on, it was set aside. Although the respondent was in detention for sixty days, the investigation was not concluded, and the petitioner department did not file a complaint. As a result, the respondent filed a request for statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and the same was granted. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order granting bail to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that no benefit under Section 167(2) of the CrPC could be given to the respondent because the bail had already been canceled once. The bench observed that although the respondent’s bail was canceled earlier, the respondent was eligible for statutory bail due to the prosecution’s failure to file the complaint within the statutory time limit. Get a Copy of Supreme Court Judgements on GST, Click here The Delhi HC observed that Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of the CrPC has been recognized by the apex court as a constitutional right to bail when procedural delays occur. The Court noted the prosecution’s lack of action in filing a complaint even after five years, suggesting that the department was more concerned with keeping the accused in custody than carrying out the actual trial.  The bench, consisting of Amit Mahajan, found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.