Vakalatnama filed today by S/Shri Gyanendra Singh and Sanjay Shukla, Advocates on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the condition nos. 1 and 2 imposed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrte, Meerut in the order dated 22.4.2019 granting default bail to the applicant under Section 167(2) CrPC in crime no. 207 of 2019 registered by DGGI, Ghaziabad under Section 132(1(B) and (C) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and to modify condition no.3 imposed by the Court below in the said order.

Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties.

It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for applicant that applicant was implicated in aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences. Since charge sheet was not filed within sixty days, applicant was enlarged on default bail vide order dated 22.4.2019 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut but conditions were imposed i.e. to give Bank Guarantee (Security) of Rupees Three Crores, to deposit Rupees One Crore in the form of cash/cheque/draft and surety bonds of Rupees Twenty Lakh each etc.. Referring to aforesaid conditions it is further submitted that the conditions are onerous and applicant is not able to fulfil the said conditions imposed by Court below. Total amount of evasion of tax alleged against applicant is about Rupees Nine Crores. It is also submitted that imposing such conditions while granting bail to the applicant is nothing but denial to release the applicant on bail. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for applicant relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in Sandeep Jain Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2000(1) Crimes 163 and Ramathal Vs. Inspector of Police, 2010(1) SCC(Cri) 708.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for Department opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant submitted that keeping in view the amount of evasion of tax alleged against the applicant, conditions imposed upon the applicant vide order dated 22.4.2019 passed by Court below while granting default bail cannot be said to be onerous or exorbitant and no interference is warranted in the matter by this Court.

I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.

Though in this matter alleged evasion of tax is about Rupees Nine Crores yet keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and conditions imposed by the Court below upon the applicant while granting him default bail, it is clear that condition nos. 1 and 2 imposed by Court below in the impugned order are onerous and are against spirit of bail order and same amounts denial of bail. Hence, in my view, there is substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

The application is liable to be allowed and the conditions imposed by the Court below vide impugned order are liable to be modified as under:

(i) Conditions No. (1) imposed vide the order dated 22.4.2019 is deleted.

(ii) Condition No. (2) imposed vide order dated 22.4.2019 is modified to the extent of ₹ 50,00,000/-, which will be subject to final decision in the matter.

(iii) One additional condition is imposed that applicant / accused shall not leave the country without prior permission of Court concerned during pendency of trial and passport, if any, issued against his name shall be deposited in the Court concerned.

Rest of terms, conditions and directions given in the impugned order shall remain operative.

With the aforesaid observations, the application is allowed and impugned order is modified, as above.