2025:UHC:2034 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/463/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Present applicant- Mohd. Shahnawaz Hussain, S/o Babu Hussain Bismil, is in judicial custody in relation to Case No. 818/STB/RDP/03/03/2023 arising out of criminal complaint case no. 3530 of 2023, State Tax Department vs. Mohd. Shahnawaz Husain wherein the present applicant is facing proceeding for the offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(b), 132 (1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of UKGST/CGST Act, 2017. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offence, as alleged, are triable by the Magistrate and the maximum sentence is five years. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that earlier in the said crime the applicant was enlarged on bail by the court of learned Session Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. Subsequently, the bail was cancelled on the ground that this fact has been suppressed that the applicant has previous criminal history which was challenged before this Court in C482 No. 1000 of 2024, and this Court also rejected the application preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and affirmed the order of the learned Session Judge, cancelling the bail of the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after dismissal of C482 application on 08.07.2024, the applicant was arrested then he moved fresh bail 2025:UHC:2034 application. Subsequently, the bail application was rejected by the 1st Addl. District and Session Judge, Udham Singh Nagar by order dated 12.02.2025. The counsel for the applicant submits that while rejecting the bail application, the 1st Addl. District and Session Judge has not applied independent mind and merely being influenced with the observation of the Court in the order passed in C482 No. 1000 of 2024, rejected the bail application. Apart from this, he submits that when the applicant earlier filed the bail application then the prosecution filed their version and disclosed the criminal history of the applicant, and, therefore, there was no occasion for the applicant to disclose the past history since the prosecution has already disclosed the past history of the present applicant. 6. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution case is absolutely without any substance and the applicant is innocent. 7. On the other side, Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the proceedings are going on in the Trial Court and has not disputed this fact that maximum punishment is five years and the applicant has already served more than six months in jail. He has also not disputed this fact that the offences, as alleged, are triable by the Magistrate. 8. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, and further taking into consideration that the offences are triable by the Magistrate, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail by putting some stringent condition. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant Mohd. Shahnawaz 2025:UHC:2034 Hussain be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing of two reliable sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned and further subject to the condition that he will surrender his passport, if any, before the Trial Court and will not leave the country without permission of the Trial Court. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 21.03.2025 Parul 2025:UHC:2034