Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 171
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence (Dggi) -Petitioner
Versus
Yogesh Kumar Gupta - Respondent
CRL.M.C. 1573 of 2025 & CRL.M.A. 7109 of 2025
Decided On : 27-03-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. SC with Ms. Suhani Mathur, Mr. Jai Ahuja and Mr. Akshay Saxena, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Pratap Singh and Mr. Ajay Singh, Advocates.
Successive bail applications must demonstrate a material change in circumstances; otherwise, they risk being deemed an abuse of process.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483(3) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439(2) - Cancellation of bail - Respondent involved in fraudulent billing racket with substantial fraudulent ITC - Bail granted without new grounds or material change in circumstances - Court emphasized the need for fresh grounds for successive bail applications. (Paras 1, 3, 7, 10, 12)
(B) Judicial discipline - Successive bail applications must demonstrate material change in circumstances to avoid abuse of process - Courts must respect earlier findings unless new facts arise. (Paras 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The Respondent, arrested for operating a fraudulent billing racket, was granted bail despite no substantial investigation post-arrest. The Petitioner contended that the bail was granted arbitrarily without considering previous denials.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no material change in circumstances justifying the bail grant and set aside the CJM's observations regarding the same.
Issues: The main issues were whether the second bail application was maintainable and if the CJM's grant of bail was justified without new grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that successive bail applications require fresh grounds; the absence of such grounds renders the bail grant unsustainable.
Result: Petition disposed of; observations regarding material change in circumstances set aside.
ORDER :
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [“BNSS”] (erstwhile Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [“Cr.P.C.”]), by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence,, [“DGGI”] seeking cancellation and setting aside of the regular bail granted to the Respondent by order dated 3rd March, 2025 passed by the CJM, New Delhi District.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case, as outlined in the petition, are as flows:
2.1 The Respondent, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, is the mastermind of a fraudulent billing racket, operating through 16 firms/ companies, engaged in the practice of issuing GST invoices without the actual supply of goods or services. This operation is executed in a planned and systematic manner, with an intent to defraud the government exchequer. The Respondent has also been playing an active role in passing of fraudulent ITC.
2.2 At the time of the Respondent’s arrest, the total amount of fraudulent ITC generated and passed by him was INR 86.37 crores. However, further investigation and analysis of the evidence gathered determined that the actual quantum of fraudulent ITC passed by the Respondent was approximately INR 280 crores, with the possibility of this amount increasing further.
2.3 The Respondent was arrested on the basis of the evidence obtained from his mobile phone as well as his statement dated 27th January, 2025, in which he admitted to be involved in the availing and passing on of fake/bogus ITC. Furthermore, during a search of the office premises of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal, who is also alleged to be involved in the fraudulent billing network, his statement was recorded, in which he confirmed that most of the fake/bogus invoices issued by the fraudulent companies were routed through the Respondent.
2.4 The Respondent was arrested on 28th January, 2025. Thereafter, he filed an application dated 10th February, 2025 seeking regular bail before the CJM. The Prosecution filed their reply to the said application, and arguments were heard on 15th February, 2025. The order was reserved and the matter was kept for pronouncement on 18th February, 2025. However, on the said date, the order was not pronounced and the matter was kept for pronouncement on 21st February, 2025, on which date again, the pronouncement was deferred to 24th February, 2025. On the said date, the bail application of the Respondent was dismissed.
2.5 On 25th February, 2025, the Petitioner moved an application for extension of the Respondent’s judicial custody, which was allowed by order dated 25th February, 2025.
2.6 On 27th February, 2025, the Respondent filed the second bail application, which was directed to be listed on 1st March, 2025. In the meantime, on 28th February, 2025, the Petitioner department recorded the statement of the Respondent in Judicial Custody.
2.7 The Petitioner field a reply to the second bail application on 1st March, 2025 and arguments were also advanced on the said date. The Petitioner raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the second bail application, citing the absence of any change in circumstances since the dismissal of the first bail application. However, on 3rd March, 2025, the CJM, through the impugned order, granted bail to the Respondent.
3. Aggrieved by the decision, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the setting aside of the impugned order dated 3rd March, 2025. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the DGGI, contends that the Respondent was granted bail in an arbitrary manner and in undue haste, without adequately considering the contentions and submissions made by the Petitioner before the CJM. He argues that while the Respondent has the right to file successive applications for bail, the second application did not present any new grounds that would warrant a different opinion by the CJM. Since there were no material changes in the circumstances since the dismissal of the first
