ORDER :

Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with Case No. DGGI/INV/GST/2563/2022-Gr.-F-O/o ADG-DGGI-JZU-Jaipur registered at learned Special Court Additional Chief Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence) Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur for the offence under Section(s) 132(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity "the Act of 2017").

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has falsely been implicated in this case. Inviting attention of this Court towards the contents of para 19 of the reply filed by the respondent to the memo of bail application, learned counsel submits that the entire amount of alleged tax evasion to the tune of Rs.43.93 crores, has already been deposited by the recipient(s). He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.11.2022, investigation is complete, charge sheet is going to be filed tomorrow, the offence is compoundable, the maximum sentence award able is five years and prays for his release on bail. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 05.12.2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10319/2022: Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India and dated 11.07.2022 passed in Misc. Application No.1849/2021 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5191/2021: Stender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, opposing the prayer submits that deposition of the evaded tax is itself evident of the culpability of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel submits that the economic offence constitutes a class in itself and the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail. He, however, admits that the charge sheet is going to be filed tomorrow being the last date permissible under the statute for the same. He, relying upon following judgments, prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

1. Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation: Criminal Appeal No.728/2013 (arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.9706/2012, dated 09.05.2013,

2. Ram Narain Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation: Appeal (Crl.) No.1097/1999, dated 14.01.2003,

3. Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari & Anr.: Criminal Appeal No.1381/2019 (@ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.7437/2019, dated 12.09.2019,

4. P.V. Ramana Reddy v. Union of India & Ors.: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4430/2019, dated 27.05.2019 and

5. State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal: AIR 1987 SC 1321.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has, in case of Ratnambar Kaushik (supra), held as under:-

"5. Though allegations and counter allegations are made, at this stage, it would not be necessary for us to advert to the details of the rival contentions, since the matter in any event is at large before the trial court and any observations on merits herein would prejudice the case of the parties, therein. However, for the limited purpose of answering the prayer for the grant of bail, the contentions are taken note of. It is no doubt true, that an allegation is made with regard to the transportation of un-manufactured tobacco and it is alleged that such procurement of un-manufactured tobacco is for clandestine manufacture and supply of zarda without payment of leviable duties and taxes. Though it is further contended that in the process of the investigation, the transportation of a larger quantity of un-manufactured tobacco weighing about 35,57,450 kgs. is detected, these are all matters to be established based on the evidence, in the trial.

6. In conside