HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
MANEESH SHARMA, J.
Ankur Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Naresh Chandra - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Principal Additional Director General, Directorate Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence and Anr. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 322 of 2025 In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.6128 of 2025
Decided On : 12-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of bail application and facts of case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner seeks modification of bail conditions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. opposition to modification by prosecution. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's considerations on maintainability and inherent powers. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. legal observations on personal liberty in bail context. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. balancing personal liberty and prosecution interests. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. modification of bail conditions decided. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
MANEESH SHARMA, J.
1. The present miscellaneous application has been filed by the accused/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’) under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’) seeking modification/deletion of condition No. (i) and condition No. (ii) imposed by this Court while granting bail vide order dated 16.06.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6128/2025.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are that Case No. F.No.DGGI/INV/GST/2764/2023-Gr.C was registered against the petitioner for alleged offences under Sections 132 (1) (a), (e), (f) and (l) read with Sections 132 (1)(i) and 132(iv)(5) of the CGST Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has evaded GST to the tune of Rs. 8.75 crores, on the following charges:—
"i) That the petitioner was selling tyres and tyre-tubes without issuance of invoices or challans;
ii) That the petitioner was selling motorcycle tyres and tubes by wrongly using invoices meant for cycles;
iii) That the petitioner sold tyres and tubes at prices lower than their actual value."
3. In connection with the aforesaid case, the petitioner filed a regular bail application under Section 483 of BNSS , which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.06.2025, subject to the following conditions:
"(i) he shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court.
(ii) he shall deposit the passport before the concerned authority.
(iii) he shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend each and every date of hearing in the trial, until and unless his presence is exempted by the trial court.
(iv) in case, the above conditions are not complied by the petitioner, thus the respondent prosecution shall be free to move for cancellation bail application."
4. The inherent powers of this Court are hereby invoked under Section 528 , BNSS , seeking modification of the order dated 16.06.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6128/2025, to the extent that the said order granting regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS in favour of the petitioner is a bit onerous and causing immense hardship to him to fulfill his business/professional pursuits.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a businessman by vocation, is a Director in M/s Kalivahan Rubber Private Limited, a partner in M/s Kalivahan, and the Proprietor of M/s Kalivahan Rubber Udyog; the aforesaid entities are engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various types of tyres and tubes. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, being the operational head of these entities, the petitioner is actively involved in the international expansion of business operations, and owing to such nature of work, the petitioner requires to travel abroad frequently, and has done so in the past, in the ordinary course of business, the same was supported with copies placed on record, marked as Annexure-A/2 (Colly). He also submits that looking to the facts stated above, the restrictions imposed vide conditions No. (i) and No. (ii) of the order dated 16.06.2025 are a bit onerous and causing serious prejudice to the petitioner as they restrain him from undertaking his international business commitments freely.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that since: (i) the entire family of the petitioner, including his parents and spo
Disha A. Ravi vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Ashutosh Bajoria Vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma
Smt. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India
Satish Chandra Verma v. Union of India
Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Bail conditions can be modified under inherent powers to prevent undue hardship to the accused while maintaining the integrity of the trial and respecting personal liberties.
The court affirmed its inherent power to modify bail conditions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to ensure justice and prevent undue hardship to the accused.
The right to travel abroad is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty, protected by Article 21, and should only be restricted by lawful and just procedures.
Imposing bail conditions that result in indefinite detention violates fundamental rights under Article 21 and contravenes bail provisions stated in the Cr.P.C.
The right to travel abroad is protected under Article 21, and courts must avoid imposing onerous bail conditions.
Bail conditions for foreign nationals must respect personal liberty under Article 21 and cannot lead to indefinite detention without legal backing.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.