Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 2563
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.
Sohan Singh Rao – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2555/2022
Decided On : 24-03-2022
Mr. V. R. Bajwa, Senior Adv., Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv, Mr. Snehdeep Khyaliya, Adv, for the Appellant, Mr. Kinshuk Jain, for the Respondent.
The seriousness of economic offences and the precedent of similar cases can influence the court's decision on bail applications.
Headnote:
Bail Application - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 132(1)(A), (F), (H), (I), (L) - [132(1)(A), 132(1)(F), 132(1)(H), 132(1)(I), 132(1)(L)] - The court considered the seriousness of the alleged offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the precedent of a similar case where bail was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the current bail application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Director in M/s Miraj Products Private Limited, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(A), (F), (H), (I), (L) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, involving tax evasion of Rs. 869 Crores. The petitioner argued false implication and sought bail based on precedents and the compoundable nature of the offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the bail application, considering the seriousness of the alleged offences and the precedent of a similar case where bail was denied.
Issues: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for alleged offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Ratio Decidendi: The seriousness of the alleged offences and the precedent of a similar case where bail was denied influenced the court's decision to dismiss the bail application.
Final Decision: The bail application stands dismissed.
ORDER
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of file No.DGGI/INV/GST/2916/2021-Gr-K-O/o DD-DGGI/RU-Udaipur, relating to offence punishable under Sections 132 (1)(A), (F),(H),(I),(L) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is a simply Director in the M/s Miraj Products Private Limited. He is behind the bars since 13.01.2022. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that in first complaint, there was not a single word regarding alleged offence against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that in supplementary complaint, only allegation of the offence based on the statement of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner had retracted from the statement. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner is similar to the case of Dananjay Singh Versus Union Of India in which this Court has granted bail to the Dananjay Singh. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted bail to the Vinaykant Ameta. So, as a matter of parity, petitioner be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that in initial complaint, allegation was against the Vinaykant Ameta not against the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent's department does not have adequate data for evasion of tax of Rs.869 Crores. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case against the petitioner is on surmises and conjectures. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that maximum punishment in this case is 5 years and case against the petitioner is triable by Magistrate. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent department had not seized any unaccounted bill regarding packaging of tabacco in the premises. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that they had deposited the amount of Rs.100 Crores and also going to deposit another amount of Rs.100 Crores. Offence against the petitioner is compoundable. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that provision of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is not applicable in this case and Department had not taken leave from concerned Court for further investigation. Conclusion of trial may take long time. So, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:(1) Tarun Jain Vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence DGGI (Bail AppN.3771/2021 and Crl.M.A.16552/2021) decided on 26.11.2021; (2) Dananjay Singh Vs. Union Of India in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.18825/2021 decided on 05.02.2022; (3) Naresh Chandra Jajra Vs. Union Of India in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1914/2022 decided on 25.02.2022; (4) M/s. Dhariwal Products Vs. Union of India and ors. in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No.2189/2022; (5) Ronak Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.16083/2021 decided on 04.10.2021; (6) Lakshya Agarwal Vs. DGGI Jaipur Zonal Unit and anr. in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.20392/2021; (7) Shri Amit Agrawal and Anr. Vs. Union Of India in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.5809/2021; (8) Khekh Ram and Ors. Vs. NCB and Ors. In Criminal Appeal No.450/2016 and 38 of 2017 decided on 29.12.2017; (9) Yogesh Mittal Vs. Enforcement Directorate in bail Application No.1165/2017 decided on 16.01.2018; (10) Shobha Ram Vs. State Of U.P. reported in 1992 CRI. L.J. 1371 and (11) Yunis Vs. State of U. P. reported in 1999 CRI.L.J. 4094.
4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the p
