1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

2. The Petitioner being in custody in 2(C)C.C. No.170 of 2018, pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Rourkela, has filed this petition for his on bail. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for the opposite party-G.S.T.

4. As it appears, on a complaint that the Petitioner, who happens to be the Director and Authorized Signatory of M/s. Shri Ganapati Ores & Ispat Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Kshipra Consumer Marketing Pvt. Ltd. which are trading Companies having G.S.T. registration, is involved in issuance of fake invoices indicating the sales of goods/raw materials used to different manufacturing units of Steel and Aluminium which are located in different locations of Odisha as well as outside the State of Odisha, has been taken to custody as the same resulted huge loss of the revenue in the shape of input tax credit claimed by the units to whom the fake invoices are issued without actual movement of goods.

5. Prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merit. However, in BLAPL No.10089 of 2019, this Court vide order dated 4.11.2020 has granted interim bail for a period of sixty days to the Petitioner with a direction to the Court below that to take all effective steps to conclude the trial within six months from the date of order and in view of the order of this Court, the trial court posted the case on 25.1.2021, 12.2.2021, 25,2.2021, 1.3.2021, 2.3.2021 and 3.3.2021 and on 3.3.2021, but due to non-production of the witnesses by the complainant and seeking adjournment, the trial of the case could not be completed though the petitioner is in custody since 12.10.2018 and cooperating with the trial.  

6. From the aforesaid, it appears that the prosecution in this case is not interested to conclude the case at an early date inasmuch as in spite of the opportunities given, witnesses have not been produced by the complainant. The Petitioner has already undergone more than 50% of the sentence prescribed on conviction on the offence alleged is not disputed. Section- 436-A of Cr.P.C. speaks that where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law), undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties. However, the first proviso of that section speaks that the Court hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties. Furthermore, second proviso to that section speaks that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law. However, an explanation has been added to the same that in computing such period, the detention under the section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceed caused by the accused shall be excluded.

7. As it appears, in this case, nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court indicating the fact that the petitioner, who was all along in custody has contributed to the delay of conclusion of the trial, rather the order of the Magistrate speaks that the complainant is not producing the witnesses, as such, the delay. In such premises, even if right to be released on bail for such delay under the provision, is not an absolute right in view of the first proviso inasmuch as in appropriate cases, the detention of the Petitioner for a longer period can be ordered, even if he has undergone more than one-half of the sentence prescribed, but such discretion should be used to deny the benefit under Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. when the accused mischievously or purposefully delaying the trial and the delay in disposal is attributable to him.

8. As stated earlier here in this case that being not so, this Court extending the benefit of mandate of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. directs the trial Court to release the Petitioner on bail in the aforesaid case on such terms and conditions as it would deem just and proper including the conditions that the Petitioner shall surrender his Passport, if any, before the Court, shall appear in person on each date of trial, shall record his presence in R.N. Palli Police Station once in a week between 4.00 P.M. to 5.00 P.M. till conclusion of the trial, shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without permission of the Court concerned and shall not indulge in any criminal activities much less similar criminal activities. Violation of any of the said conditions imposed shall entail cancellation of bail.

9. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of being allowed.

10. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021.