The grant of bail is the rule, and refusal is the exception, but the gravity of the offence and the consequences on society must be considered. The court must balance the competing forces present in the facts and circumstances of each case before granting bail.

JUDGMENT

Aman Chaudhary, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 132(1)(i) read with Section 132(1)(b)(c)(e)(f) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

2. Learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant by qualification, who was initially registered but had subsequently given it up. In the present case, he had been paid professional fee for uploading of the refund of Input Tax Credit. The petitioner and his co-accused Sunil Mahalawat were colleagues, as such the UDIN was borrowed by the petitioner from him for uploading and issuance of the CA certificate. He, however, further submits that otherwise as per Rule 89(m) of CGST Rules, CA certificate is not required for the aforesaid purpose. He further submits that pursuant to the notice by which, the petitioner was summoned, he appeared to join the investigation on 17.5.2022 but was arrested there and then. Thereafter, he was sent to the judicial remand but no request for police remand had been sought by the respondent- Department. The recovery of laptop and other relevant documents have already been effected from the petitioner. He further submits that the entire investigation has been completed, challan stands presented and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. He is in custody since the date of his arrest i.e. 17.5.2022 and in all there are a total of 21 prosecution witnesses, all of whom are officials of the Department, as is reflected from the challan.

3. He further submits that from the challan it is apparent that before the disbursal of the amount, the Range Officer had submitted the report after conducting physical verification marked on the system and recommended that refund may be sanctioned. He further refers to the statement of co- accused-Lalit Dogra, who in response to question No.6 had stated that he had engaged the petitioner to render professional service against payment of fee. It is stated that the maximum sentence for the alleged offence is 5 years and it is a Magisterial trial, which is likely to take a considerable time. It is his further submission that there is no allegation against him that he in any way was the beneficiary of the excess Input Tax Credit, allegedly received by the companies. He is also not involved in any other case.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Department opposes the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that huge loss has been caused to the department, though, certain bank accounts have already been freezed and certain companies have voluntarily refunded the amount due towards them. Department is still trying to figure out as to who all are involved in the case and proceedings against certain officials have also been initiated. He however, is unable to controvert the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 17.5.2022; the laptop and other relevant documents have already been recovered from the petitioner; the challan has since been presented; there are 21 PWs in all and the trial is yet to commence. As regards the non-requirement of CA certificate is concerned, he disputes the same.

5. In support of his submissions, he places reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ramendu Chattopadhyay 2020(1) RCR (Crl.) 167; The State of Bihar and another vs. Amit Kumar @ Bacha Rai 2017(3) RCR (Crl.) 690, SLP (Crl.) Nos. 4322 and 4324 of 2019 in case of Union of India vs. Sapna Jain; Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2013(3) RCR (Crl.) 175 (paras 27 and 29); Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2013(3) RCR (Crl.) 108 (paras 14 to 17) and P.V. Ramana Reddy vs. Union of India 2019(25) G.S.T.L.185, (para 39 to 46) (Telangana),

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. For considering the present petition, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court o