Economic offences involving serious tax evasion and tampering with evidence warrant denial of bail due to their potential to impact public revenue.

Order

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in Complaint No.F.No.DGGI/INT/INTL/755/2025-GR-N, dated 13.08.2025, District Jaipur Metro-II for the offences under Sections 132 (1),(A),(F)(G)(H) & (L) CGST, 2017 punished under (1)(I)&(IV) read with Section 132 (5) CGST, 2017.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that the instant case pertains to allegations of evasion of Goods and Services Tax (GST), for which the applicant has been in judicial custody for a period of approximately three and a half months, i.e., since 13.08.2025, under Sections 132 read with Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017. It is contended that the charge- sheet has already been filed and that recovery has also been effected from the applicant. It is further urged that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and that the offence is triable by the learned Magistrate and is also compoundable at the instance of the Commissioner under the statutory scheme of the CGST Act.

3. It is argued that the commodity in question is marble, and the applicant along with one co-accused Hansraj Gujjar is presently in custody, whereas the main accused and alleged mastermind, namely Pawan Regar, has not been apprehended till date, thereby demonstrating an arbitrary and pick-and-choose approach on part of the respondent-department. Learned counsel further submitted that issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 73 itself may take up to five years, assumingly, and conclusion of the trial may also take considerable time. It is further contended that the applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family and continued incarceration would cause grave hardship. To support the plea made insofar, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineet Jain v. Union of India , Criminal Appeal No. 2269/2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4349/2025), and on the dictum passed by the Coordinate Bench in Mohit Vijay v. Union of India , S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7605/2019.

4. Per contra, Shri Akshay Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the DGGI, assisted by the officers present in Court, has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that the case at hand pertains to a serious white-collar economic offence, committed in a premeditated and well-organized manner. Investigation has revealed that approximately 13 bogus firms were created in the names of poor labourers and persons of limited financial means in order to fraudulently clear marble across India using e-way bills.

5. It is further submitted that the modus operandi of the applicant and co-accused involved procuring GST registrations in the names of such persons, facilitating clandestine removal of goods, and failing to file returns or filing them belatedly. It is alleged that one Pawan Regar, who is stated to have charged Rs. 55,000 per bogus firm, actively participated in the operation. Intelligence gathered by the Research and Development team from Delhi prompted the DGGI to conduct searches. During the search, the applicant allegedly attempted to tamper with evidence, and one recovered document was partially destroyed (eaten out and attempted to be swallowed).

6. It is submitted that the investigation is ongoing, particularly regarding valuation of the evasion, involvement of remaining co-accused, and unearthing of the wider cartel. Although the preliminary estimate was around Rs. 10 crores, the ongoing investigation has already revealed possible evasion of approximately Rs. 40 crores, which may further escalate into hundreds or thousands of crores as the valuation exercis