SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Raj) 2215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.
Khem Chand Thathera – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13823 of 2022
Decided on : 03-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Siddharth Ranka assisted by Mr. M. Iqbal, Mr. Saurav Harsh, Ms. Apeksha Bapna and Mr. Rohan Chatter.
For the Respondent: Mr. Punit Singhvi assisted by Mr. Ayush Singh.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 132(1)

(B)

(C), 73, 74 - Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - The petitioner was arrested for tax evasion and contended false implication with arrest violations - No adjudication notice served; petitioner in custody since 01.08.2022, charge-sheet filed on 30.09.2022, with plea for bail based on no prior criminal records and nature of allegations - Court balanced the case facts, leading to bail grant with imposed conditions. (Paras 2, 6, 7)

(B) Bail Standards - Principles established regarding withholding evidence during trial and considerations relevant to grant of bail in economic crime investigations discussed. (Paras 6)

(C) Importance of no apprehension of tampering with evidence noted due to nature of anticipated testimony primarily being documentary. (Paras 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged his arrest related to a significant tax evasion charge of Rs.20.83 Cr., asserting improper arrest procedures and absence of a formal notice regarding tax liability.

Findings of Court:
The Court ruled it appropriate to grant bail in light of the delay in trial and nature of evidence presenting no risk of tampering.

Issues: Main question included whether there were grounds to deny bail based on the nature of allegations and details regarding the arrest procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court highlighted the importance of the specifics surrounding evidence presentation and justified the bail by emphasizing the absence of risks.

Result: Bail application is allowed.

Table of Content
1. bail application and arrest context. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding bail and allegations. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's reasoning for bail consideration. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. conditions for granting bail. (Para 7)
5. final order granting bail. (Para 8)

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. EW-I, Rajasthan/INS-01/27 registered at Office of Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ward-I, Circle A, Enforcement Wing-1, Rajasthan, Jaipur for the offence(s) under Section(s) 132(1)(B) (C) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity "the Act of 2017").

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submitted that there has been violation of mandatory provisions while effecting his arrest and its continuation as contained in the Act of 2017. Learned counsel submits that till date, no notice for adjudication of the tax liability as stipulated under Section 73 & 74 of the Act of 2017 has been served upon him. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 01.08.2022, after conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed on 30.09.2022, he has already deposited 10 per cent of the alleged evaded tax amount, the maximum punishment which can be awarded is five years, the offences are compoundable, he has no criminal antecedents and prayed for his release on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, relied upon a judgment 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.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is grave allegation against the petitioner of evasion of tax amount to the tune of Rs.20.83 Cr. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the bail application. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation: (2013) 7 SCC 439 and the judgment dated 05.07.2021 in case of Ashok Kumar Sihotiya v. Union of India: 2021 SCC Online Raj 2795 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and another judgment dated 07.09.2021 passed in SB Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.13042/2021: Lalit Goyal v. Union of India & Anr. which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its judgment dated 26.08.2022 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3509/2022.

4. Heard. Considered.

5. 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 unmanufactured tobacco and it is alleged that such procurement of unmanufactured 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 unmanufactured 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 considering the application for bail, it is noted that the petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2022 and while in custody, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Even if it is taken note that the alleged evasion of tax by the petitioner is to the extent as provided under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top