In economic offences, anticipatory bail must be granted sparingly, considering serious allegations and the need for effective investigation.

ORDER :

ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J.

1. This pre-arrest bail application under Section 482 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who are having apprehension of their arrest in connection with Criminal Case No. DGGI/INV/GST/574/2025-Gr.I registered for offences punishable under Sections 132(1), 132(1)(i)(iv) & 132(5) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that petitioner No.1 is a Director of two companies, namely M/s Prem Jain Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. (M/s PJIUPL) and M/s Tanay Dhyata Steel Concast Ltd. (M/s TDSCL), while petitioner No.2, who is the son of petitioner No.1, is also one of the Directors of the said companies. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is that, in their capacity as Directors, they have evaded tax amounting to Rs.20,63,97,337/- (Rupees Twenty Crore Sixty-Three Lakh Ninety-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Seven only). Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused solely on the basis of the statement of one Manoj Vijay, whose firm, M/s Mahaveer Trading Company, is alleged to have supplied scrap material/TMT bars to the petitioners’ firms without issuance of bills. It is contended that the petitioners have no association with the said Manoj Vijay or his firm. Learned counsel further submits that although Mr. Gyan Chand, who is the General Manager of M/s PJIUPL and the authorized signatory of M/s TDSCL, has alleged in his statement that such transactions were carried out at the directions of petitioner No.1, except for the said allegation, there is no material on record to even prima facie establish the involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged offence.

3. It is further submitted that against the alleged tax evasion of Rs.20,63,97,337/-, the petitioners have already deposited a sum of Rs.10,38,98,566/- (Rupees Ten Crore Thirty-Eight Lakh Ninety- Eight Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-Six only) with the Department, which, according to learned counsel, demonstrates the bona fide intention of the petitioners. It is also contended that the petitioners are willing to fully cooperate with the investigation and, in compliance with the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, they have appeared before the concerned authority. Learned counsel argues that since petitioners have joined the investigation as per direction of this Court, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not warranted and no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioners to arrest. He thus, prays that this pre-arrest bail application may be allowed.

4. To buttress his contentions, counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon various judgments/orders passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as High Courts including this Court in the following cases:-

1. Dell International Services India Pvt. Ltd versus Adeel Feroze & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4576.

2. Pankaj Bansal versus Union of India & Ors., reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 .

3. Bijender versus State of Haryana , (arising out of SLP Crl. No.1079/2024, decided on 06.03.2024).

4. Radhika Agarwal versus Union of India , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 449.

5. Tarun Jain versus Directorate General of GST Intelligence DGGI , Bail Application No.3771/2021 & Crl. M.A. No.16552/2021, dated 26.11.2021.

6. Nitin Verma versus State of UP, in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail No.4116/2020, dated 05.01.2021.

7. Vineet Jain v