IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that personal liberty must be protected and that the gravity of the offence alone cannot justify denial of bail.

ORDER :

1. The present bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. DGGI/INV/GST/911/2024-Gr-H-O/OADG- DGGI-ZU-Jaipur for the offence punishable under section 132(1) (a), (f) (h) and (l) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’).

2. Facts of the case are that the respondent-Union of India through Senior Intelligence Officer filed a detailed complaint under section 132 of the Act of 2017 in the Court of learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences, Jaipur Metro-II, on the basis of which an FIR No. DGGI/INV/GST/911/2024-Gr-H-O/OADG-DGGI-ZU-Jaipur for the offence punishable under section 132(1)(a), (f) (h) and (l) of the Act of 2017 was registered. The gist of the complaint is as under:

3. Counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submitted that the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused petitioner is triable by First Class Magistrate and the maximum punishment is 5 years. Counsel also submitted that the offences in regard to evasion of tax upto Rs.5 crores is bailable and the person against whom there are allegations of creating fake firms has not been arrested so far and the investigation has been kept pending against him. In such circumstances, keeping the accused petitioner in custody for an indefinite period is unjustified. Counsel also submitted that the actual culprit in this case has been saved by the complainant- Union of India. Counsel also submitted that the accused petitioner has been made as an accused only on the basis of his won statement recorded under section 70 of the Act of 2017. It is also submitted that no any amount, as alleged by the respondent- Union of India, has been ever credited in the bank account of the petitioner.

Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever. Counsel further submitted that as regards the claim of the Department that the alleged offence in the present case falls in the category of economic offences in this regard it is submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2016 (2) DLT (Cri) 210 has held that the gravity of offence cannot be decisive grounds to deny bail and that the protection of personal liberty has to be weighed with the object of securing attendance of the accused at trial. While granting bail it has further been held that a balanced approach must be taken and that it is preferable to grant bail with stringent conditions rather than keeping an individual in detention for an indefinite period, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in H.B. Chaturvedi vs. Central Bureau of Investigation in Bail Application No. 572/2010 & 459/2010.

Counsel further submitted that grant of bail is the rule and jail is the exception as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2018) 3 SCC 22.

Counsel also submitted that it is a well settled law that mere gravity of the offence is no ground to deny bail and even if the allegation (assuming for the sake of arguments) is of a grave economic offence, there is no rule that bail should be denied in every such case. In this regard, reliance is placed on P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791.

Counsel further submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner in custody. Counsel also submitted that the merits of the case ought not to be gone into at the time of adjudication of the bail application as has been held in the case of Niranjan Singh & Anr. vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 559.

Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case and no case is made out against the petitioner.

Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has fully co-operated with the investigation in the subject matter from the very beginning. The fact that the petitioner is in ju