Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Union Of India, Through The Intelligence Officer, Goods And Services Tax, Intelligence Department – Appellant
Versus
Arun Jindal S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Jindal – Respondent
ORDER :
Praveer Bhatnagar, J.
1. Union of India through the Intelligence Officer, Goods And Services Tax, Intelligence Department has submitted an application for cancelling the bail granted to the respondent- Arun Jindal vide impugned order dated 11.03.2025, whereby the respondent was enlarged on bail for the offences under Sections 132 (1) (a) (f) (h) and (1) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CGST Act’).
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order suffers from patent illegality and perversity as in para 22 of the impugned order, the trial court has observed that under Section 132 (1) (ii) read with Section 132 (4) of the CGST Act, the offences are compoundable and bailable and if the respondent wish to deposit the 50% of the amount quantified as Rs.9,39,79,589/- then the offence would come within the purview of Section 138 of the CGST Act, which is compoundable.
3. It is contended that the analogy drawn by learned Trial Court, while granting bail to the respondent is contrary to terms of Section 132 read with Section 138 of the CGST Act.
4. It is also contended that the allegations levelled against the responde
The court reaffirmed that bail in economic offences must adhere to legal classifications; deposit of funds does not alter the non-bailable nature of offences exceeding specified monetary thresholds.
The court ruled that economic offences require a stringent approach in bail matters, emphasizing the gravity of allegations and evidence against the accused.
The court emphasized that economic offences require a stringent approach in bail considerations, especially when serious allegations of fraud are involved.
Anticipatory bail granted despite serious economic offence allegations, emphasizing the principle of 'bail not jail' and the need for case-specific evaluation while ensuring compliance with investiga....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'reasons to believe' for arrest under section 69 of the CGST Act and the need to balance custodial interrogation with personal l....
The court emphasized the requirement of reasons to believe and sound reasons for arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, and the need to balance personal liberty with the seriousness of economic off....
Bail cannot be denied based solely on pending investigations of co-accused; each case must be evaluated individually, considering the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right.
Any offence under this Act may, either before or after institution of prosecution, be compounded by Commissioner on payment, by person accused of the offence, to Central Government or State Governmen....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
