The court granted bail, emphasizing the applicant's readiness to deposit amounts and absence of flight risk, while imposing strict conditions to ensure compliance.

ORDER :

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent-State.

2. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with File No.DGGI/AZU/GR.C/12(4)21/2024-25 at Ahmedabad under the provisions of Central Goods and Service Tax Act.

3. Heard learned senior Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.

4. Learned senior Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the applicant herein is alleged to have evade the benefit of Input Tax Credit to the tune of Rs.20,33,35,303/-, against the said amount, the amount of Rs.9,92,05,920/- had already been deposited. The amount of Rs.1,03,00,000/- had been seized in cash by the concerned authorities and the applicant had moved the concerned authorities to give credit of the said amount against the amount to be recovered from the present applicant. Moreover, the applicant is having Demand Draft for the amount of Rs.7,35,02,480/- ready with him which shall be deposited before this court during the course of the day.

4.1 The other co-accused namely Ravi Jayantilal Patel is the partner of the applicant and the said co-accused had also deposited the amount of Rs.2,14,00,677/- and the said amount should also be taken as credit against the present applicant also.

4.2 Learned senior Advocate for the Applicant further submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application for grant of regular bail. Learned APP submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the application may be dismissed.

5.1 Learned Advocate Mr.Tirth Nayak appearing for the respondent authorities has also opposed the present application contending that the applicant had evade Input Tax Credit to the tune of Rs.20,33,35,303/-. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.

5.2 Learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit-in-reply which is ordered to be taken on record.

6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. It is an admitted position that against the amount of Rs.20,33,35,303/-, the amount of Rs.9,92,05,920/- had already been deposited and the applicant is also having Demand Draft ready for the amount of Rs.7,35,02,480/-, which as per the statement made by learned senior advocate for the applicant, will be deposited before the Registry of this court during the course of day. It is also the case on part of the applicant that the amount of Rs.1,03,00,000/- had been seized by the authorities in cash. The applicant herein had moved the concerned authorities to give credit of the said amount against the amount outstanding from the present applicant. Considering the same, the application deserves consideration.

7. This court has considered the following aspects:

(a) As per catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there are mainly 3 factors which are required to be considered by this court i.e. prima facie case, availability of Applicant accused at the time of trial and tampering and hampering with the witnesses by the accused.

(b) That the learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant Accused is not likely to flee away.

(c) That the Applicant is in custody since 5.3.2025.

(d) The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. Reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.

8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perusing the record produced in this case as well as taking into consideration the facts of the case, nature of allegations, gravity of accusation,