In cases of significant tax evasion, bail should normally be denied due to the gravity of offenses and risks of flight or evidence tampering.

ORDER :

1. SBCRLMB No. 13655/2025 is moved under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”) assailing the rejection order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 9 Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 211/2025 (CIS No. 2512/2025), wherein the regular bail application of the accused-applicant was rejected in connection with the offences under Section 132(1)(i) and 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act”) in FILE No. DGGI/INT/INTL/702/2025, registered by DGGI Udaipur Regional Unit under the DGGI Jaipur Zonal Unit.

2. SBCRLMB No. 13782/2025 is moved under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”) assailing the rejection order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 206/2025 (CIS No. 2498/2025), wherein the regular bail application of the accused-applicant was rejected in connection with the offences under Section 132(1)(i) and 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act”) in FILE No. DGGI/INT/INTL/702/2025, registered by DGGI Udaipur Regional Unit under the DGGI Jaipur Zonal Unit.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant–Jagdish submitted that the applicant is engaged in providing facilitation services pertaining to company registrations with online payment aggregators. It is the allegation of the DGGI (Intelligence) that the applicant facilitated the onboarding of entities, namely M/s Invoestr Global Private Limited, M/s Involanding Games Private Limited, and M/s Chefbiz Spices Private Limited, with various online payment aggregators for the purpose of receiving online gaming revenues. It was further alleged that the aforesaid private limited companies collectively received transactions amounting to approximately Rs.45 Crores towards online gaming services without payment of GST. The alleged GST evasion, initially quantified at Rs.11.20 Crores, was subsequently revised upward in the final complaint dated 10.11.2025. It was also submitted that the applicants were arrested on 12.09.2025 and have remained in judicial custody since then. Learned counsel further contended that the applicant has been erroneously treated as a “deemed supplier” within the meaning and scheme of the CGST Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants further submitted, cumulatively, that the alleged violations fall under the provisions of the CGST Act 2017, wherein the maximum prescribed punishment is five years’ imprisonment and the offences are triable by a Magistrate. It was argued that with the filing of the final complaint on 10.11.2025, the investigation stands concluded, and therefore, continued judicial custody of the applicants serves no further investigative purpose and amounts to unwarranted deprivation of liberty. It was asserted that the applicants have no direct culpability, being merely facilitators/aggregators who received commission for the services rendered. Learned counsel had also placed reliance on Clause 3.5 of the Finance Ministry Instruction No. 2022-23 (GST Investigation Guidelines), stating that arrest is not warranted in cases of tech