MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Rajiv Jindal – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
1. This bunch of bail applications arises out of three first information reports, which are: (i) FIR /Case Crime No. 203 of 2023, dated 04.05.2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-20, District Gautam Buddh Nagar (ii) FIR/Case Crime No. 248 of 2023, dated 01.06.2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-20, District Gataum Buddh Nagar, and (iii) FIR/Case Crime No. 255 of 2023, dated 08.06.203, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC, Noida Sector-20, District Gataum Buddh Nagar.
2. For ready reference, it would be appropriate to refer the details of bail applications preferred by the applicants under relevant sections, detailing case crime numbers, police stations and districts in the form of a chart, which are being summarized as under :
| Sl. No. | Bail Application No. | Applicant’s Name | Case Crime No. | Under Sections | Police Station | District | |
| 1. | 53010/2023 | Rajiv Jindal | 0248/2023 | 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC | Noida Sector-20 | Gataum Buddh Nagar | |
| 2. | 52966/2023 | Rajiv Jindal | 255/2023 | 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC | Noida Sector-20 | ||
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 2 SCC 427
Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab
Bharat Chaudhary v. Union of India (2021) 20 SCC 50
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ramendu Chattopadhyay
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019) 16 SCC 547
Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)
Haricharan Kurmi and another v. State of Bihar
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another (2004) 7 SCC 528
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.)
Manoj Kumar Sharma & others v. State of Chhattisgarh & another
Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2009) 14 SCC 286
Mehboob Ali and another v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 14 SCC 640
Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra
Narcotics Control Bureau v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta
Navaneethakrishnan v. State By Inspector of Police
Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791
Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and Another
Puran v. Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338
Rajender Singh & others v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 298
Rajesh Jindal v. Commissioner of Central Tax GST, Delhi (West), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 1344
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh
Ramashish Yadav & others v. State of Bihar (1999) 8 SCC 555
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 26 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S)
Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal v. Union of India (2021) 20 SCC 57
Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin ohari and Another
State of Bihar and another v. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai
State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Another
State of Uttar Pradesh Through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 8
Sunil Kumar v. Stte of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 245, (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 603
Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2018) 8 SCC 271
Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer
Susanta Ghosh v. State of W.B. (2012) 2 SCC 680 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 979
Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Y Abraham Ajith & others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & another
The court emphasized the serious nature of economic offences, affirming that bail is the exception, especially when substantial financial loss to the state is involved.
The principle of double jeopardy does not apply when offences under IPC and GST Act are distinct, emphasizing the serious nature of economic crimes.
Economic offences involving fraudulent GST registrations require stringent scrutiny in bail applications due to their serious implications for public interest and financial integrity.
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....
The court emphasized the necessity of substantial evidence for serious charges under the GST Act and the accused's right to a fair trial.
The severity of economic offences, the nature of evidence, and the larger interests of the public are crucial factors in determining bail under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, ....
The severity of economic offences warrants a different approach to bail applications, and each application must be decided based on its own facts and circumstances.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.