Bombay HC granted Bail to Sentenced Ex-GST Official in Rs.1.2 Crore Disproportionate Assets Case

The Bombay High Court suspended the sentence of a former Goods and Services Tax (GST) department superintendent, who was sentenced to four years in prison for disproportionate assets (DA) of Rs.1.2 crore last week. Prasiddh Dubey, 66, was granted bail after submitting a personal bond of Rs.15,000.

On October 23, vacation judge Justice Sharmila Deshmukh heard an appeal by Dubey appealing his sentence imposed by a special CBI court. Subey sought bail and a suspension of his sentence while his appeal was being heard. His attorney claimed that he was never arrested and was always on bail.

“In the meantime, the Applicant’s substantive jail sentence from October 23, 2024, is suspended. The applicant would be released on bail by producing a PR bond of Rs.15,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court,” the HC stated.

The HC has scheduled Dubey’s appeal for a hearing on November 18. The CBI arrested the couple on February 20, 2018, citing confidential information concerning disproportionate assets, stating that Dubey, while working as superintendent (GST, Audit-1, Mumbai), owned assets excessive to his known source of income from June 1994 to February 2018.

The High Court has scheduled a hearing on Dubey’s appeal for November 18. The CBI detained the couple on February 20, 2018, citing sensitive information about disproportionate assets, claiming that Dubey, while working as superintendent (GST, Audit-1, Mumbai), had assets that exceeded his recognized source of income from June 1994 to February 2018.

However, Dubey maintained that he did not help Vimla’s acquisition of any properties. Furthermore, he stated that Vimla had an independent source of income, such as her own garments business, rental income from properties, and agricultural income. It was also stated that any property possessed by Vimla, given the two live together, cannot be deemed to have been acquired on behalf of her husband, a public official.

However, CBI argued that, though Vimla had an independent source of income, it was insufficient to purchase these properties.